Murtha Lie: Our troops are just stretched too thin, Bush won't deploy enough troops.
Sepetember 2, 2002 - Army: There are 1,012,000 soldiers on active duty, in the Reserves, or in the National Guard. Of them, 261,000 are deployed overseas in 120 countries. Iraq accounts for 103,000 soldiers, or 10.2 percent of the Army.
Murtha was one of two congressmen to vote for the draft last year.
If 130,000 U.S. troops aren't enough to accomplish our goals in Iraq, explain Afghanistan where 15,000 troops have maintained relative peace! Iraq is steadily attaining more security personel, by December they should have 230,000.
Murtha says: Our troops are the target. We are occupiers. The enemy.
If our troops are "the target" we should be thanking those traitorous jackasses that celebrate and politicize the "2000 soldiers who've died in Iraq". Terrorist A to Terrorist B: "Look! Perhaps a few more and we will break their will!" You made them the target. We know who considers our troops the enemy. Do they have absolute moral authority Mr. Murtha?
Murtha Lie: We are cutting Defense spending.
No. We aren't. The budget for FY2006 "Raises overall Defense spending by 4.8 percent, or 41 percent since 2001. "
Of course, there are more. I did not commit all his bullshit to memory, but that should be enough to show him for the doddering fool that he is.
I swear Murtha read from a Cindy Sheehan letter in the debate before the vote.
ONLY 3 VOTED YEA So much for the courage of their conviction. And I'm sure someone will take issue with the fact that this bill is not Murtha's. It isn't. It's Murtha's without all the "whereas the war is lost" bullcrap stripped off and only the call to pull out of Iraq left. So if they want to make some big ass stink about how this wasn't MURTHA'S it is nothing more than a matter of semantics. It would have accomplished exactly the same thing despite the removal of the "whereas" crap.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Put-up or Shut-up Time for Traitorous Democrats
So you're a jackass who has never offered a single constructive comment to help the US attain victory in the Iraq war. You bitched and pissed and moaned through the interim government vote, the successful constitutional referendum, and plan on bitching through the vote to elect representatives by that constitution this December. You worry endlessly about how cruel our troops are to the poor "freedom fighters", you celebrate landmarks when it comes to the loss of US soldiers. You are just against the war soooooooo much! Here's your chance!
House Republicans call for vote on Murtha's request for Immediate Withdrawal in Iraq.
Notice that they CURRENTLY admit we are taking advantage of an opportunity. Later, when they are trying to spin their precious jackasses out of this shit hole, you'll be hard pressed to hear it referred to as the spanking that it will be.
Because it took her stupid ass completely by suprise.
Vote for the cut and run you blustering traitorous sacks of shit!
UPDATE: The debate before the vote is ongoing at present. Common Traitor Democrat complaint: "There is not enough time before we vote on this - damn you Republicans." REMINDER JACKASSES: Democrat John Murtha "a little more than 24 hours ago" said it was time to pull out the troops!!!!! BEYOND THAT - You lying Democrats have had 2 and half years to debate the Iraq war and you've done nothing but bitch! You want to cut and run, grow a pair and vote with Murtha! No? :) THEN OFFER SOLUTIONS RATHER THAN COMPLAINTS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Common Traitor Democrat Complaint Numbers 2 and 3: Murtha "wanted debate". BULLSHIT! He proposed a resolution. He wants "immediate withdrawal". Murtha's patriotism is being challenged. Not by elected Republicans. No. BUT I SURE AS FUCK AM CALLING HIM A FUCKING TRAITOR! Just like the rest of you fucking Democrat liars. You offer nothing constructive. NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT OFFERED A CONSTRUCTIVE SOLUTION to the difficulties faced by our troops in Iraq. They only bitch and lie.
House Republicans call for vote on Murtha's request for Immediate Withdrawal in Iraq.
House Republicans, seeing an opportunity, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker’s call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.
Notice that they CURRENTLY admit we are taking advantage of an opportunity. Later, when they are trying to spin their precious jackasses out of this shit hole, you'll be hard pressed to hear it referred to as the spanking that it will be.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California had no immediate reaction
to the idea of a quick vote before Congress leaves Washington for two weeks.
Because it took her stupid ass completely by suprise.
GOP leaders decided to act little more than 24 hours after Rep. John Murtha, a hawkish Democrat (BULLSHIT) with close ties to the military, said the time had come to pull out the troops.
Vote for the cut and run you blustering traitorous sacks of shit!
UPDATE: The debate before the vote is ongoing at present. Common Traitor Democrat complaint: "There is not enough time before we vote on this - damn you Republicans." REMINDER JACKASSES: Democrat John Murtha "a little more than 24 hours ago" said it was time to pull out the troops!!!!! BEYOND THAT - You lying Democrats have had 2 and half years to debate the Iraq war and you've done nothing but bitch! You want to cut and run, grow a pair and vote with Murtha! No? :) THEN OFFER SOLUTIONS RATHER THAN COMPLAINTS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Common Traitor Democrat Complaint Numbers 2 and 3: Murtha "wanted debate". BULLSHIT! He proposed a resolution. He wants "immediate withdrawal". Murtha's patriotism is being challenged. Not by elected Republicans. No. BUT I SURE AS FUCK AM CALLING HIM A FUCKING TRAITOR! Just like the rest of you fucking Democrat liars. You offer nothing constructive. NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT OFFERED A CONSTRUCTIVE SOLUTION to the difficulties faced by our troops in Iraq. They only bitch and lie.
Credit when they get it right - Senate Rejects Windfall Profits Tax
The Senate voted 65-33 against Democrat Senator Schumer's attempt to impose a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. Only Democrats voted in favor of this idiocy.
Best comment I have seen in a while
Leftie: "His policies have turned Iraq into a breeder reactor for terrorism that will continue to produce radicalized, miltarily trained and motivated terrorists capable of actions abroad, for years!"
Rightie: "We've killed at least 40,000 terrorists in Iraq. That's not a 'breeder reactor', it's a Roach Motel."
THE ASTUTE BLOGGER: FRENCH CHURCHES BURN AND THE LEFT AND THE MSM IGNORE IT
Rightie: "We've killed at least 40,000 terrorists in Iraq. That's not a 'breeder reactor', it's a Roach Motel."
THE ASTUTE BLOGGER: FRENCH CHURCHES BURN AND THE LEFT AND THE MSM IGNORE IT
Yet another dismantling
Of the "Inspections were working" lie that the Dimocrats are peddling.
It gets worse from there. Read it and discover just how useless the "Inspections" were. And this excerpt makes me want to vomit:
Found via Powerline.
FP: With the Democrats now so viciously and hypocritically attacking Bush about WMDs, I’d like to discuss your own knowledge and expertise on this issue in connection to Iraq. You have always held that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Why? Can you discuss some actual finds?
Tierney: It was probably on my second inspection that I realized the Iraqis had no intention of ever cooperating. They had very successfully turned The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections during the eighties into tea parties, and had expected UNSCOM to turn out the same way. However, there was one fundamental difference between IAEA and UNSCOM that the Iraqis did not account for. There was a disincentive in IAEA inspections to be aggressive and intrusive, since the same standards could then be applied to the members states of the inspectors. IAEA had to consider the continued cooperation of all the member states. UNSCOM, however, was focused on enforcing and verifying one specific Security Council Resolution, 687, and the level of intrusiveness would depend on the cooperation from Iraq.
I came into the inspection program as an interrogator and Arabic linguist, so I crossed over various fields and spotted various deception techniques that may not have been noticed in only one field, such as chemical or biological. For instance, the Iraqis would ask in very reasonable tones that questionable documents be set aside until the end of the day, when a discussion would determine what was truly of interest to UNSCOM. The chief inspector, not wanting to appear like a knuckle-dragging ogre, would agree. Instead of setting the documents on a table in a stack, the Iraqis would set them side to side, filling the entire table top, and would place the most explosive documents on the edge of the table. At some point they would flood the room with people, and in the confusion abscond with the revealing documents.
This occurred at Tuwaitha Atomic Research Facility in 1996. A car tried to blow through an UNSCOM vehicle checkpoint at the gate. The car had a stack of documents about two feet high in the back seat. In the middle of the stack, I found a document with a Revolutionary Command Council letterhead that discussed Atomic projects with four number designations that were previously unknown. The Iraqis were extremely concerned. I turned the document over to the chief inspector, who then fell for the Iraqis’ “reasonable request” to lay it out on a table for later discussion. The Iraqis later flooded the room, and the document disappeared. Score one for the Iraqis.
It gets worse from there. Read it and discover just how useless the "Inspections" were. And this excerpt makes me want to vomit:
Operation Desert Fox was a perfect example of the uselessness of strike operations. Iraqis have told me that the WMD destruction and movement started just after Operation Desert Fox, since after all, who would be so stupid as to start a bombing campaign and just stop.
It was only after Saddam realized that President Clinton lacked the nerve for anything more than a temper-tantrum demonstration that he knew the doors were wide open for him to continue his weapons program. We didn’t break his will, we didn’t destroy his weapons making capability (The Iraqis simply moved most of the precision machinery out prior to the strikes, then rebuilt the buildings), but we did kill some Iraqi bystanders, just so President Clinton could say “something must be done, so I did something.”
General Zinni, Commander of CENTCOM, and no other senior officer had any problem with this fecklessness. They apparently bought into the notion that wars are meant to be managed and not waged. The warriors coming into the military post 9/11 deserve true warriors at the top. I believe the house cleaning among the senior military leadership started by the Secretary of Defense should continue full force. If not across the board, then definitely in the military intelligence field.
Found via Powerline.
So, tell me again
Just how the UN sanctions were supposed to be "containing" Saddam?
Saddam was bribing just about everybody that he could in the UN. He was lining his pockets and getting away with just about anything. And yet the brain-dead Left, the self-named (and often parodied) "reality-based" community, continues to assert that UN sanctions were working.
Uh huh. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Go read Captain Ed to see just how corrupt the UN truly is.
The London Telegraph reports this morning that a senior French diplomat has confessed to accepting money from Saddam Hussein in exchange for his access to and influence with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. The former UN ambassador for France claims that the allocations given to him through Tariq Aziz came in recognition of his "work for the Iraqi people", but nonetheless acknowledges its illegality:
Saddam was bribing just about everybody that he could in the UN. He was lining his pockets and getting away with just about anything. And yet the brain-dead Left, the self-named (and often parodied) "reality-based" community, continues to assert that UN sanctions were working.
Uh huh. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Go read Captain Ed to see just how corrupt the UN truly is.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Traditional Democrat Bigotry Noted
NAACP chief makes switch to GOP
Can you imagine this Moonbat's confusion! "Colored People" in construction are supposed to use shovels not calculators, RIGHT? And what's all this talk about having an executive business life? That's gotta be confusing. To a Leftist bigot.
((Disclosure: I'm another type of construction professional that confuses Democrats, and this really frosts me.))
For decades, Republicans have struggled to reach out to black Americans. But now in Orange County, the GOP has to reach no further than the NAACP.
As of this week, Derrick Wallace, head of Orange County's NAACP, has switched parties -- to become a Republican.
"I've thought about this for two years," Wallace said Tuesday afternoon, just a few hours after returning from the elections office. "This is not a decision I made yesterday."
It is, however, a decision that rang out like a shot among political circles.
Republican Party leader Lew Oliver described himself as "extraordinarily pleased," while Democratic leader Tim Shea said he was disappointed.
Wallace, a construction-company exec, was candid about the fact that his business life was a big part of his decision to change.
"It's purely a business decision. Ninety percent of those I do business with are Republicans," he said. "Opportunities that have come to my firm have been brought by Republicans."
To that, Democrat Shea responded: "I'm a little confused. Are we talking about the National Association for the Advancement of Construction Professionals -- or Colored People?"
Can you imagine this Moonbat's confusion! "Colored People" in construction are supposed to use shovels not calculators, RIGHT? And what's all this talk about having an executive business life? That's gotta be confusing. To a Leftist bigot.
((Disclosure: I'm another type of construction professional that confuses Democrats, and this really frosts me.))
Words from the Liberal that Leftists love to hate
Believe It or Not
"Let us suppose, then, that we can find a senator who voted for the 1998 act to remove Saddam Hussein yet did not anticipate that it might entail the use of force, and who later voted for the 2002 resolution and did not appreciate that the authorization of force would entail the removal of Saddam Hussein! Would this senator kindly stand up and take a bow? He or she embodies all the moral and intellectual force of the anti-war movement. And don't be bashful, ladies and gentlemen of the "shocked, shocked" faction, we already know who you are."
((He's really Orwellian, but don't tell the Dems.))
"Let us suppose, then, that we can find a senator who voted for the 1998 act to remove Saddam Hussein yet did not anticipate that it might entail the use of force, and who later voted for the 2002 resolution and did not appreciate that the authorization of force would entail the removal of Saddam Hussein! Would this senator kindly stand up and take a bow? He or she embodies all the moral and intellectual force of the anti-war movement. And don't be bashful, ladies and gentlemen of the "shocked, shocked" faction, we already know who you are."((He's really Orwellian, but don't tell the Dems.))
WMC
Or, Weapons of Mass Confusion. Slimy, worthless Democrats (I know, it's redundant) are now saying that oil company executives lied to them during hearings last week.
To which I say, the oil executives should cut off all oil to New Jersey, California and Washington for a week and see what happens.
As usual, the Dimocrats, who know jack shit about economics and oil commodities, want to blame their own abject failures to keep a proper supply of petroleum products on hand in America on the companies who supply those products.
It's called "Supply and Demand", Senators. I suggest you do some reading on that subject, since you obviously don't have a clue about it. Oil companies only get a percentage of their profits from gasoline. There's also diesel fuel, heating oil, various types of lubricating oil, and thousands of other petroleum products. But since you're Dimocrats, and therefore have the mental capacity of an alcohol soaked slug, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
Let's see here, if you're trying to get together a task force on energy production, who are you going to get to attend that meeting? Um..... I guess if you're a Dimocrat, you invite fluffy bunnies and librarians. For people who live in the real world, you invite the people and companies responsible for PRODUCING THE FUCKING ENERGY!
And why in the name of all that's holy would an energy task force want to talk to the Sierra Club?
Seriously, you can't write irony that damn good. Can you imagine the transcript of that meeting?
Oil Company: Mr. Vice President, I think our best bet to replacforeigngn oil would be to drill in ANWR.
Sierra Club: YOU WANT TO HARRASS THE CARIBOU AND KILL BABY SEALS, YOU EARTH RAPING BASTARDS!
VP Cheney: Umm....
OHMYGOD! AN OIL COMPANY WAS THERE! BUSHITLERMCHALIBURTON WANTS TO RULE THE WORLD!
Let's be honest, shall we? This wasn't so much a "Let's find out what happened" as it was a "Let's lambast the oil companies and blame them for everything including the death of Christ" moment on Capitol Hill.
My response would have been: "I'll answer that question as soon as Sen. Boxer answers whether or not she has stopped molesting little boys. " Seriously, at this point I would have walked out. The very same people who have prevented any new refineries from being built in this country are now trying to blame the oil companies for the high price of gas! That botoxed bitch would better serve her country if she were shoved into a septic tank and left to ferment.
Gosh, who woulda thunk that a decades-old refinery would be expensive and hard to maintain? And Boxer's accusation amounts to nothing more than hysterical mud-slinging. Again, I say let's cut California off from the gasoline spigot and watch what happens.
So let's accuse the person WHO WAS NOT IN CHARGE OF THE COMPANY WHEN THOSE LETTERS WERE WRITTEN of trying to drive prices up! Boxer, you stupid cunt, it would serve you right if every oil company just shut off shippments to California. I'd love to see that state go back into the stone-age. Maybe worthless hags like Boxer and Pelosi would be the first to be ravaged by murdering hordes. Maybe when San Fran and LA have bit the dust, we can turn the supply line back on.
Cantwell and morons like her are the reason I kicked the dust of Washington State off my feet as quickly as I could. Let's try this on for size, you stupid bint:
You accused an oil company of diverting shipments to keep supply low and demand high. Fine. I guess you have a right to be a moronic fucking pissant. But please, oh please, tell me you remember a little thing called HURRICANE FUCKING KATRINA! You know, that weather that DESTROYED THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS! And HURRICANE FUCKING RITA! You know, that little bit of weather that smacked into other parts of the Gulf Coast?
DO YOU THINK THAT MAYBE THEY HAD AN EFFECT ON WHERE A HUGE DAMN OIL TANKER COULD DOCK, YOU BRAINLESS FUCKING BITCH? DO YOU THINK THAT A SHIP TWO FOOTBALL FIELDS LONG CAN JUST PULL UP ANYWHERE AND UNLOAD MILLIONS OF GALLONS?
It's things like this that remind me just how unfit the Dimocrats are to have any power whatsoever in this country. It's things like this that remind me how LACKING in logic the Dimocrats are. Let's also keep a few things in mind, shall we?
Who has prevented the building of any new oil refineries in this country for the past quarter century?
DEMOCRATS.
Who has blocked any new drilling for oil off our coasts?
DEMOCRATS.
Who has consistantly blocked the exploration for oil in America?
DEMOCRATS.
So, having prevented this country from enlarging it's gas supply, the Dimocrats want to blame the oil companies. Having prevented America from reducing it's dependance on foriegn oil, the Dimocrats now want to blame the companies that bring oil to America. Having prevented this country from finding new supplies of oil, the Dimocrats want to scream at the companies that ensure we have gas.
Liberals really are that worthless and stupid, folks. And the Republicans who go along with the Dimocrats are JUST as stupid and worthless.
Where the hell is that reset button at, anyways?
By the way, I apologise for any spelling mistakes. I know I made a few of them.
On Wednesday, Sens. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., called on Senate leaders to bring back the executives to account for what they say were outright lies.
To which I say, the oil executives should cut off all oil to New Jersey, California and Washington for a week and see what happens.
Spokesmen for Shell and ExxonMobil reached Wednesday stood by their executives' statements last week. A spokeswoman for BP America did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.
As usual, the Dimocrats, who know jack shit about economics and oil commodities, want to blame their own abject failures to keep a proper supply of petroleum products on hand in America on the companies who supply those products.
After Hurricane Katrina, oil and gasoline prices skyrocketed, leading to record third-quarter profits by oil companies. The companies represented by the five executives that testified last week collectively reported more than $32.8 billion in third-quarter profits, an increase of more than 55 percent over the previous third-quarter profits. The earnings led senators to hold last week's hearings, where they questioned what executives were doing with their profits and what they were doing to lower gas prices.
It's called "Supply and Demand", Senators. I suggest you do some reading on that subject, since you obviously don't have a clue about it. Oil companies only get a percentage of their profits from gasoline. There's also diesel fuel, heating oil, various types of lubricating oil, and thousands of other petroleum products. But since you're Dimocrats, and therefore have the mental capacity of an alcohol soaked slug, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
Lautenberg charged that the executives lied when they said they did not meet with an energy task force organized by Vice President Dick Cheney to develop the nation's energy policy. The Sierra Club and Judicial Watch unsuccessfully sued to open the task force records after they alleged that energy executives and lobbyists were consulted on national policy, but environmental groups and others were left out of negotiations.
Lautenberg cited a Washington Post report Wednesday that references a White House document listing meetings in 2001 between representatives of the oil companies and members of the task force staff. Officials from ExxonMobil, Conoco Ã?— before its merger with Phillips Ã?— Royal Dutch/Shell and Shell Oil and BP met with task force members between February and April 2001, the report says.
Let's see here, if you're trying to get together a task force on energy production, who are you going to get to attend that meeting? Um..... I guess if you're a Dimocrat, you invite fluffy bunnies and librarians. For people who live in the real world, you invite the people and companies responsible for PRODUCING THE FUCKING ENERGY!
And why in the name of all that's holy would an energy task force want to talk to the Sierra Club?
Seriously, you can't write irony that damn good. Can you imagine the transcript of that meeting?
Oil Company: Mr. Vice President, I think our best bet to replacforeigngn oil would be to drill in ANWR.
Sierra Club: YOU WANT TO HARRASS THE CARIBOU AND KILL BABY SEALS, YOU EARTH RAPING BASTARDS!
VP Cheney: Umm....
Last week, under direct questioning from Lautenberg, ExxonMobil President Lee Raymond, Chevron Chairman David O'Reilly and ConocoPhillips chief James Mulva also said they did not take part in the task force.
BP America President and CEO Ross Pillari said: "To be honest ... I wasn't here then."
"But your company was here," Lautenberg pressed.
"Yes," Pillari acknowledged.
OHMYGOD! AN OIL COMPANY WAS THERE! BUSHITLERMCHALIBURTON WANTS TO RULE THE WORLD!
Shell Oil Co. President John Hofmeister, who took the helm at Shell this year, said he did not know whether his company's representatives attended task force meetings.
Let's be honest, shall we? This wasn't so much a "Let's find out what happened" as it was a "Let's lambast the oil companies and blame them for everything including the death of Christ" moment on Capitol Hill.
On a narrower topic, Boxer called into question statements by Hofmeister about the sale of a Bakersfield, Calif., oil refinery that provides 2 percent of California's gasoline. At the hearing Boxer asked whether Shell had sought to close the refinery in 2004 in order to boost its profit margin.
"Was it because you wanted to control the supply of gasoline and make gasoline even more expensive for my people in California?" Boxer asked.
My response would have been: "I'll answer that question as soon as Sen. Boxer answers whether or not she has stopped molesting little boys. " Seriously, at this point I would have walked out. The very same people who have prevented any new refineries from being built in this country are now trying to blame the oil companies for the high price of gas! That botoxed bitch would better serve her country if she were shoved into a septic tank and left to ferment.
Hofmeister responded, in part: "We shopped the refinery around, unofficially, but did not find buyers. We then decided to close it" because, the refinery was old, small and difficult to work with because it was on multiple plots of land.
Hofmeister did not directly respond to Boxer's accusation of trying to short supply to drive up prices.
Gosh, who woulda thunk that a decades-old refinery would be expensive and hard to maintain? And Boxer's accusation amounts to nothing more than hysterical mud-slinging. Again, I say let's cut California off from the gasoline spigot and watch what happens.
On Wednesday, Boxer revealed she had received two letters in April and May 2004 from the then-company CEO, who said Shell had no plans to sell the plant and was not seeking buyers, although the company would keep the option open.
So let's accuse the person WHO WAS NOT IN CHARGE OF THE COMPANY WHEN THOSE LETTERS WERE WRITTEN of trying to drive prices up! Boxer, you stupid cunt, it would serve you right if every oil company just shut off shippments to California. I'd love to see that state go back into the stone-age. Maybe worthless hags like Boxer and Pelosi would be the first to be ravaged by murdering hordes. Maybe when San Fran and LA have bit the dust, we can turn the supply line back on.
For her part, Cantwell disputed claims by BP America CEO Ross Pillari about oil shipping practices and efforts to manipulate the price of oil by diverting its destination.
In last week's hearing, Cantwell asked the executives if they had diverted fuel away from U.S. markets in order to keep supplies low and prices high. The executives said they do not generally divert supplies, but in some instances oil shipments may have been turned away because there was no way to get them into port.
Cantwell on Wednesday said that the combination of testimony by state attorneys general, a 2001 report in The (Portland) Oregonian about BP America's price hikes and a 2003 RAND Corporation report about oil capacity reduction show that the oil company executives were deliberately misleading the panels.
Cantwell and morons like her are the reason I kicked the dust of Washington State off my feet as quickly as I could. Let's try this on for size, you stupid bint:
You accused an oil company of diverting shipments to keep supply low and demand high. Fine. I guess you have a right to be a moronic fucking pissant. But please, oh please, tell me you remember a little thing called HURRICANE FUCKING KATRINA! You know, that weather that DESTROYED THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS! And HURRICANE FUCKING RITA! You know, that little bit of weather that smacked into other parts of the Gulf Coast?
DO YOU THINK THAT MAYBE THEY HAD AN EFFECT ON WHERE A HUGE DAMN OIL TANKER COULD DOCK, YOU BRAINLESS FUCKING BITCH? DO YOU THINK THAT A SHIP TWO FOOTBALL FIELDS LONG CAN JUST PULL UP ANYWHERE AND UNLOAD MILLIONS OF GALLONS?
It's things like this that remind me just how unfit the Dimocrats are to have any power whatsoever in this country. It's things like this that remind me how LACKING in logic the Dimocrats are. Let's also keep a few things in mind, shall we?
Who has prevented the building of any new oil refineries in this country for the past quarter century?
DEMOCRATS.
Who has blocked any new drilling for oil off our coasts?
DEMOCRATS.
Who has consistantly blocked the exploration for oil in America?
DEMOCRATS.
So, having prevented this country from enlarging it's gas supply, the Dimocrats want to blame the oil companies. Having prevented America from reducing it's dependance on foriegn oil, the Dimocrats now want to blame the companies that bring oil to America. Having prevented this country from finding new supplies of oil, the Dimocrats want to scream at the companies that ensure we have gas.
Liberals really are that worthless and stupid, folks. And the Republicans who go along with the Dimocrats are JUST as stupid and worthless.
Where the hell is that reset button at, anyways?
By the way, I apologise for any spelling mistakes. I know I made a few of them.
DW's post reminded me....
In talking about tax laws, what we have to remember is that at this point in history, we're not dealing with theory anymore. We're dealing with learned lessons and true examples.
Communism fails. That's not a theory, that's a fact, and we know it's a fact because every communist economy has failed. Not just kinda failed, but miserably failed to support the country who tried it. The USSR is dead and gone, folks. Cuba is a stinking rathole. North Korea can't even produce enough food to feed it's citizens. China is long past the communist economy stage, even if the rest of the government is as commie as can be. China couldn't survive with a communist economy.
Socialism lowers the quality of life for people in a country. The "poor" in America have more material possessions and living space than the "middle class" in Europe. A socialist healthcare system drives people away, rather than actually helping them. Remember fwance's 10,000 dead a few summers ago?
Can anyone imagine 10,000 people dying off in a heatwave in America? Hell, we've lost one-fifth of that number in a frigging war, in a place where temps can get up to 140 degrees!
High taxes stifle economic growth. Again, this is not a theory, this is a fact. Look at every period of slow economic growth in America after the Great Depression. It's coupled with high tax rates. The opposite of that, low taxes spurring economic growth is also true. The last three big tax cuts were made by JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush. EVERY TIME, once tax rates fell economic growth surged, resulting in increased tax revenues. This isn't theory. This. Is. Fact.
And the article that made me write this post?
Flat taxes work.
DW is right, an income tax is a punishment for effort. A progressive tax rate, (higher income earners pay more taxes) is the second plank of the fucking Communist Manifesto. A simple flat tax, where everybody pays the same amount, would skyrocket our economy right off this planet. Even better, make it a flat SALES tax, and nobody could touch us. I wouldn't quite be making love to my wife on top of $100 bills, but our economy would be going so damn fast that opportunities to make money would be everywhere. Why's that, you say?
Because a flat sales tax would not touch investments. A flat sales tax wouldn't punish people for making money. When I was living in Seattle, I was putting in assloads of overtime at my job. At one point, I worked 70-80 hours a week, trying to get some money to put into a savings account. When I got my check, do you know how much more money I had?
A few hundred bucks.
A few hundred bucks for FORTY FUCKING HOURS OF OVERTIME??? That's FORTY HOURS OF TIME AND A HALF! WHERE THE HELL DID IT GO?
One word: Taxes. With all the extra income I made, it pushed me up into the next tax bracket, and a huge chunk of that money was taken by Uncle Sam. Now, is that an incentive to work overtime? Does that make me want to put all those hours in?
Hell no.
Now, lets say that America had a 20% sales tax instead of an income tax. I keep ALL the money I make. All those overtime hours would mean more than $1500 extra in my paycheck. $500 goes into my savings account (which the bank uses for it's own purposes, like handing out loans and whatnot). $500 goes into a mutual fund. And $500 goes towards good cigars, fine scotch, and a dinner out for me and a friend. What do I get taxed on?
I get taxed on the cigars, the scotch, and the dinner out. At this point the Leftists are jumping up and down screeching "SEE! SEE! LOWER TAX REVENUES! EEEEEEEEEEK!" But that's because leftists are, by nature, dumb fucking morons. My money doesn't just sit in my savings account. The bank uses it. That's why there are checking accounts and savings accounts. Savings accounts have a higher rate of interest, because the bank is USING that money to conduct it's own business. Your bank may also offer CD's and retirement accounts. Did you ever wonder why there was a monetary penalty for early withdrawal of those funds? It's because once you put your money into those types of accounts, the bank uses it. THAT is why you're getting a higher rate of interest. To put it rather simply, YOU are giving the bank a loan when you open up a retirement account or a CD. The interest you receive in return is just like the interest you would pay a bank if you got a loan from them.
And what does the bank loan your money out for?
Opening businesses, perhaps. Home loans. Car loans. In short, rather than your money just sitting in a vault somewhere, it is being used to drive the economy forward. And your $100 dollar a month IRA which you might think is chicken feed is being used so that someone can buy a $500,000 home.
Now, factor in that 20% flat rate sales tax. What's 20% of $500,000?
A hell of a lot more than I would have paid in taxes under an income tax.
Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. Wealth is fluid, flexible, able to shrink and grow. If I buy $100 worth of stock, that doesn't remain fixed. It can grow into $150 worth of the very same stock, or it can shrink to $50 worth of stock. That very simple example is what the leftists and statists just don't seem to understand. And thus they play their class warfare games and attempt to tax the shit out of everyone.
In any case, everything I've written here isn't a theory, it's a fact, albeit not stated in the classiest or wisest prose. I never claimed to be a teacher or an economist, but the fact that a simple soldier like me can see what the Dimocrats cannot should give you pause when you hear them discussing ANYTHING about the economy.
I'll probably come back and re-word this later, when I've woken up.
Communism fails. That's not a theory, that's a fact, and we know it's a fact because every communist economy has failed. Not just kinda failed, but miserably failed to support the country who tried it. The USSR is dead and gone, folks. Cuba is a stinking rathole. North Korea can't even produce enough food to feed it's citizens. China is long past the communist economy stage, even if the rest of the government is as commie as can be. China couldn't survive with a communist economy.
Socialism lowers the quality of life for people in a country. The "poor" in America have more material possessions and living space than the "middle class" in Europe. A socialist healthcare system drives people away, rather than actually helping them. Remember fwance's 10,000 dead a few summers ago?
Can anyone imagine 10,000 people dying off in a heatwave in America? Hell, we've lost one-fifth of that number in a frigging war, in a place where temps can get up to 140 degrees!
High taxes stifle economic growth. Again, this is not a theory, this is a fact. Look at every period of slow economic growth in America after the Great Depression. It's coupled with high tax rates. The opposite of that, low taxes spurring economic growth is also true. The last three big tax cuts were made by JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush. EVERY TIME, once tax rates fell economic growth surged, resulting in increased tax revenues. This isn't theory. This. Is. Fact.
And the article that made me write this post?
Flat taxes work.
In 1994 under Mart Laar Estonia introduced a flat tax of 26 percent. The country prospered with rising revenues and economic growth year upon year. Now Estonia feels confident enough to approve a lower rate of 20 percent.
DW is right, an income tax is a punishment for effort. A progressive tax rate, (higher income earners pay more taxes) is the second plank of the fucking Communist Manifesto. A simple flat tax, where everybody pays the same amount, would skyrocket our economy right off this planet. Even better, make it a flat SALES tax, and nobody could touch us. I wouldn't quite be making love to my wife on top of $100 bills, but our economy would be going so damn fast that opportunities to make money would be everywhere. Why's that, you say?
Because a flat sales tax would not touch investments. A flat sales tax wouldn't punish people for making money. When I was living in Seattle, I was putting in assloads of overtime at my job. At one point, I worked 70-80 hours a week, trying to get some money to put into a savings account. When I got my check, do you know how much more money I had?
A few hundred bucks.
A few hundred bucks for FORTY FUCKING HOURS OF OVERTIME??? That's FORTY HOURS OF TIME AND A HALF! WHERE THE HELL DID IT GO?
One word: Taxes. With all the extra income I made, it pushed me up into the next tax bracket, and a huge chunk of that money was taken by Uncle Sam. Now, is that an incentive to work overtime? Does that make me want to put all those hours in?
Hell no.
Now, lets say that America had a 20% sales tax instead of an income tax. I keep ALL the money I make. All those overtime hours would mean more than $1500 extra in my paycheck. $500 goes into my savings account (which the bank uses for it's own purposes, like handing out loans and whatnot). $500 goes into a mutual fund. And $500 goes towards good cigars, fine scotch, and a dinner out for me and a friend. What do I get taxed on?
I get taxed on the cigars, the scotch, and the dinner out. At this point the Leftists are jumping up and down screeching "SEE! SEE! LOWER TAX REVENUES! EEEEEEEEEEK!" But that's because leftists are, by nature, dumb fucking morons. My money doesn't just sit in my savings account. The bank uses it. That's why there are checking accounts and savings accounts. Savings accounts have a higher rate of interest, because the bank is USING that money to conduct it's own business. Your bank may also offer CD's and retirement accounts. Did you ever wonder why there was a monetary penalty for early withdrawal of those funds? It's because once you put your money into those types of accounts, the bank uses it. THAT is why you're getting a higher rate of interest. To put it rather simply, YOU are giving the bank a loan when you open up a retirement account or a CD. The interest you receive in return is just like the interest you would pay a bank if you got a loan from them.
And what does the bank loan your money out for?
Opening businesses, perhaps. Home loans. Car loans. In short, rather than your money just sitting in a vault somewhere, it is being used to drive the economy forward. And your $100 dollar a month IRA which you might think is chicken feed is being used so that someone can buy a $500,000 home.
Now, factor in that 20% flat rate sales tax. What's 20% of $500,000?
A hell of a lot more than I would have paid in taxes under an income tax.
Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. Wealth is fluid, flexible, able to shrink and grow. If I buy $100 worth of stock, that doesn't remain fixed. It can grow into $150 worth of the very same stock, or it can shrink to $50 worth of stock. That very simple example is what the leftists and statists just don't seem to understand. And thus they play their class warfare games and attempt to tax the shit out of everyone.
In any case, everything I've written here isn't a theory, it's a fact, albeit not stated in the classiest or wisest prose. I never claimed to be a teacher or an economist, but the fact that a simple soldier like me can see what the Dimocrats cannot should give you pause when you hear them discussing ANYTHING about the economy.
I'll probably come back and re-word this later, when I've woken up.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
There he goes again ...
"There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. His defiance of the will of the international community to allow UNSCOM to do its job cannot and will not be tolerated."
(Al Gore, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)
More Cheney being Cheney
"Thank you very much, and good evening to all of you. I heard about your gathering, and since I work down the street from here I thought I’d drop in and say hello.
Let me thank the good people of Frontiers of Freedom – George Landrith, Kerri Houston, Al Lee – for bringing us all together this evening. I see many good friends in the room, including current and former office holders. It’s a pleasure to see all of you. I’m sorry that we couldn’t be joined by Senators Harry Reid, John Kerry, or Jay Rockefeller. They were unable to attend due to a prior lack of commitment."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal
Most people would probably agree that the Declaration of Independence has been the most powerful ideological and political force in U.S. history. Nearly all Americans are familiar with the following passage:
Let's look closely at these words. First off, the phrase, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” indicates that what follows in the remainder of that particular sentence is not opinion but fact that is directly observable. If you take those words, “all men are created equal” literally, then they ring true in a way that is incontestable. We were all born as babies. (I am here making the same assumption as our Supreme Court did in 1973, i.e., created = born. In the U.S., unborn human beings do not have the right to life.) We were all created helpless, dependent, and for all practical purposes equal both mentally and physically – I do not think that at birth one could argue that one baby’s brain is superior to another’s, or if you believe in “souls” that one baby’s soul is more pure and innocent than another’s. Some babies do have female reproductive organs while others have male reproductive organs, but otherwise there are no apparent physical differences. I suppose one could argue the point - a mother’s own baby is the most beautiful baby that ever lived in her eyes - but from my perspective it does appear self-evident that we were all born fundamentally equal.
The point is that the founding fathers in 1776 were referring in this statement to human nature, not as they would have it perfected but as it is. All of us face the same world and, given the liberty to choose between them, we would face the same opportunities. (Infants and children have very limited liberties as their parents make most decisions for them, so here I am talking about adults.) I think that the founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence were referring to the way things are when they said that “all men are created equal” rather than asserting a right or entitlement. They were not saying that all individuals have a right to become equal to everyone else in any way, but only that we were created equal.
Unfortunately, equality as the basis for a system of government was not spelled out very well in the Declaration of Independence, nor was it well defined in the Constitution, and as a result the words are often used to argue not for equal opportunities for all, but equal outcomes or equal conditions for all, regardless of one’s efforts, abilities, or the choices one has made in life. Many have taken this idea that, “all men are created equal” and endowed with certain rights, and used it to imply that everyone should be equal, financially at least.
I don’t blame the founding fathers of my country for this – the phrasing of the Declaration of Independence regarding equality among mankind was, most likely, necessary to get the southern colonies to sign on since their economic wellbeing relied heavily on slave ownership – but this ambiguity was bad in that it allowed the concept of equal opportunity to become one alleging a right to equal living conditions and even equally valid moral principles, even if one set of principles contradicts another. Everyone wants to believe that he or she is as good as everyone else, but the fact is that some people are better at some things than other people, and the fact is that some belief systems match reality better than others, some decision criteria have consistently better outcomes than others, and I could go on. Egalitarianism has become more and more politically correct whether the framework is equality of moral principles, culture, or social acceptance - the founding fathers must be spinning in their graves!
One thing that both northern and southern colonists did agree on was a profound respect for property rights and hard work. This would be evident to anyone who has studied American history. The colonists of 1776 strongly believed that one should be rewarded for one’s effort and individual achievement. This is important because at that time, “pursuit of happiness” meant being able to reach for one’s dreams, to work hard and lay claim to the fruits of one’s labor. Such a claim is not possible without property rights for individuals. But now the original meaning of these words has eroded.
Why is it that when America is attacked on an ideological level it is almost always couched in terms of an attack on free-market capitalism? The Soviets called us, “capitalist pigs,” for example. Why is the businessman despised even more than the government, even when a government institution is usurping the people’s right to govern themselves? This has been true throughout history. And it’s not just that rich people are hated, but only certain rich people – the productive ones, the corporate executives and business people. Celebrities and athletes, like Britney Spears or Michael Jordan are not despised for their wealth, yet Bill Gates is. (Actually, I don’t like Bill Gates, but it has nothing to do with his being the richest man in the country.) Quite the contrary – celebrities are fawned over. It is their popularity that is the source of their wealth. But the inventor of a new vaccine, or the designer of a more efficient engine, they are often treated as if they do not have a right to be wealthier than the rest of us. Why?
I have lots more questions and I would like you, dear reader, to seriously try to answer them: Why is it always a major “problem” that there is economic inequality? And if the gap between rich and poor is wide, how is it the government’s job to fix the problem? How wide is too wide? Is it necessarily a bad thing for one to have more than another? Is it morally wrong? Is it true that if you extend democracy far enough (i.e., one person = one vote) you arrive at socialism? If we got rid of economic inequality, would we be rid of envy? Is the object of wealth redistribution to be free of want? Is it possible to be free of want? How can it be harmful to anyone if you are just being productive, being rewarded for your achievement, and accumulating wealth? Does the rich person’s income come at the expense of poor people? Is the reason that I cannot afford to buy a Lamborghini that someone else owns one? Yes, there is great inequality in the distribution of wealth in the U.S., but so what? Who creates the jobs? Who is better off, the poorest 5% of Americans or the poorest 90% of Africans? Does the fact that you answered, “The poorest 5% of Americans,” to that last question mean that Americans are just lucky and Africans unlucky? If so, what is the source of this luck?
(A side-note, and somebody fact-check me here: I think that the African continent has more natural resources in terms of raw materials, metals, minerals, timber, gas & oil than the rest of the world combined, yet the economy of the entire African continent is comparable in size to California's - not that California's economy is small.)
Poverty is simply defined as a lack of wealth. Poverty stricken nations in Africa have received more than half a trillion dollars in humanitarian aid from the U.S. over the past 40 years, much of it from private charities and churches, yet there is more poverty in Africa now than there was in the 1960s. Simply giving poor people money, while self-sacrificing and merciful, does not by itself eliminate the problem. Nobody has less wealth because somebody else has more.
There is great inequality in the distribution of wealth in the U.S.; the N.Y. Times reports this information about once a month and puts it in terms that imply that there is something wrong with our society because of this – that our society is falling apart (it is not, or if it is then that would not be because of disparities in income). A more meaningful and newsworthy statistic, if we are truly concerned with the welfare of the less fortunate, would be the percentage of Americans who are not able to survive given their economic resources. The (low) number of people who live below subsistence level is never reported as “news.”
When I criticize wealth redistribution and social programming, I am not criticizing the giving to people who would not otherwise be able to survive – such redistributions are out of compassion. But the fact is that only a very tiny percentage, maybe 1% of the wealth that is redistributed by our government from one group of people to another actually goes to people who would not otherwise be able to survive. (In this line of reasoning, I am treating Social Security as if it were a pension fund, though an unfunded one, rather than wealth redistribution.) Most wealth redistribution is based, not on compassion, but in my opinion it is based more on envy. And that, if true, is shameful – it is shameful that envy shapes our political culture.
Too harsh? Look at the current situation in Congress. In 2003 tax rates were cut across the board, for rich and poor alike – even those who did not pay taxes prior to 2003 got bigger “refund checks,” they effectively had a more negative tax rate. Everybody got a tax cut. The result we now know was a dramatic increase in tax revenue taken in by the U.S. Treasury, yet the Democrats in Congress have consistently fought against the tax cuts, and even the Republicans in Congress are reluctant to make the 2003 tax cuts permanent. Even knowing that raising tax rates back to pre-2003 levels would decrease the tax revenue collected by the government, these people still want to raise taxes. Why? I think it is because envy shapes our political culture. Because a majority has less and a minority has more, it is in the politicians’ interests to increase taxes on that minority which has more because it seems more fair to the majority group in the voting population, even knowing that total tax revenue would decrease as a direct result – even knowing that the majority group that has less would not be made better off economically. They just ‘feel better’ knowing that the rich and those “evil capitalist-pig” businessmen face higher tax rates. It is not about increasing tax revenue or decreasing the federal budget deficit; it is about reducing economic inequality, even when it benefits no one economically (except politicians).
Politicians are often heard saying that rich people are not paying their fair share. Well, how much is fair? If we take money from the rich by force and give it to the poor, are we increasing the general welfare? Let’s see, if there is a minority of wealthy people and a majority of relatively poor people, then doing this would increase the happiness of the majority of people (assuming that money makes people happy and that there are no other ethical considerations), and the minority of formerly rich people would be made less happy. Voilà – more happy people. Does this make it right? I would argue that this cannot result in an increase in "general welfare" but rather an increase in the welfare of one group at the expense of another. I personally would not want to benefit from the forced sacrifice of another person. I personally find the whole idea repulsive. I’d rather earn my keep. (By the way, Robin Hood did not take from the rich and give to the poor; what he did was he took from the government and gave back to the taxpayers what was rightfully theirs to begin with.)
The U.S. government doesn’t even tax wealth itself anyway. The primary tax paid to the federal government is the income tax, which is not a tax on wealth but a tax on productivity. (There is no federal sales tax, though some states have it. Sales tax would be a tax on consumption.) Income tax is a tax on physical and mental effort. The message our legislature seems to be sending is: “Don’t even bother to try!” Particularly for those whose means of support is a government check, there is a strong disincentive to work, because working and earning money will decrease your government check.
One final point: It seems to me that the primary beneficiaries of wealth redistribution programs are government bureaucrats & politicians. The freedoms of individuals and how they associate with each other (e.g., business organization) have been heavily restricted over this past century, and our increasingly centralized government has been growing in size, scope and in power to change people’s lives. The fact that this trend has continued into the twenty-first century probably explains why current poll ratings for government officials are so low, both for Congress (both parties and both houses) and the President. This trend makes many people uncomfortable, both here and abroad. Yes, Republicans have a majority in both houses of Congress and they hold the Presidency, but at this point many republican voters are even angrier with our government than those who voted for democrats. Here’s why: When Republican politicians ran for office, they made campaign promises: drill for oil in ANWR so we can be less dependent on foreign oil, fix Social Security, simplify the tax code, make the 2003 tax cuts permanent, make government smaller, etc. These promises have yet to be filled. Particularly since gaining a majority in the Senate in the 2002 elections, Republican politicians have been acting more and more like Demonrats (i.e., socialist).
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”It is my opinion that these words form the very foundation upon which the U.S. as a nation has been built, and that the words quoted above underlie much of what is American, not only politically both in terms of domestic and foreign policy, but economically, socially and culturally as well. Americans believe in those words and what they represent, and that belief is a big part of what makes us Americans.
Let's look closely at these words. First off, the phrase, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” indicates that what follows in the remainder of that particular sentence is not opinion but fact that is directly observable. If you take those words, “all men are created equal” literally, then they ring true in a way that is incontestable. We were all born as babies. (I am here making the same assumption as our Supreme Court did in 1973, i.e., created = born. In the U.S., unborn human beings do not have the right to life.) We were all created helpless, dependent, and for all practical purposes equal both mentally and physically – I do not think that at birth one could argue that one baby’s brain is superior to another’s, or if you believe in “souls” that one baby’s soul is more pure and innocent than another’s. Some babies do have female reproductive organs while others have male reproductive organs, but otherwise there are no apparent physical differences. I suppose one could argue the point - a mother’s own baby is the most beautiful baby that ever lived in her eyes - but from my perspective it does appear self-evident that we were all born fundamentally equal.
The point is that the founding fathers in 1776 were referring in this statement to human nature, not as they would have it perfected but as it is. All of us face the same world and, given the liberty to choose between them, we would face the same opportunities. (Infants and children have very limited liberties as their parents make most decisions for them, so here I am talking about adults.) I think that the founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence were referring to the way things are when they said that “all men are created equal” rather than asserting a right or entitlement. They were not saying that all individuals have a right to become equal to everyone else in any way, but only that we were created equal.
Unfortunately, equality as the basis for a system of government was not spelled out very well in the Declaration of Independence, nor was it well defined in the Constitution, and as a result the words are often used to argue not for equal opportunities for all, but equal outcomes or equal conditions for all, regardless of one’s efforts, abilities, or the choices one has made in life. Many have taken this idea that, “all men are created equal” and endowed with certain rights, and used it to imply that everyone should be equal, financially at least.
I don’t blame the founding fathers of my country for this – the phrasing of the Declaration of Independence regarding equality among mankind was, most likely, necessary to get the southern colonies to sign on since their economic wellbeing relied heavily on slave ownership – but this ambiguity was bad in that it allowed the concept of equal opportunity to become one alleging a right to equal living conditions and even equally valid moral principles, even if one set of principles contradicts another. Everyone wants to believe that he or she is as good as everyone else, but the fact is that some people are better at some things than other people, and the fact is that some belief systems match reality better than others, some decision criteria have consistently better outcomes than others, and I could go on. Egalitarianism has become more and more politically correct whether the framework is equality of moral principles, culture, or social acceptance - the founding fathers must be spinning in their graves!
One thing that both northern and southern colonists did agree on was a profound respect for property rights and hard work. This would be evident to anyone who has studied American history. The colonists of 1776 strongly believed that one should be rewarded for one’s effort and individual achievement. This is important because at that time, “pursuit of happiness” meant being able to reach for one’s dreams, to work hard and lay claim to the fruits of one’s labor. Such a claim is not possible without property rights for individuals. But now the original meaning of these words has eroded.
Why is it that when America is attacked on an ideological level it is almost always couched in terms of an attack on free-market capitalism? The Soviets called us, “capitalist pigs,” for example. Why is the businessman despised even more than the government, even when a government institution is usurping the people’s right to govern themselves? This has been true throughout history. And it’s not just that rich people are hated, but only certain rich people – the productive ones, the corporate executives and business people. Celebrities and athletes, like Britney Spears or Michael Jordan are not despised for their wealth, yet Bill Gates is. (Actually, I don’t like Bill Gates, but it has nothing to do with his being the richest man in the country.) Quite the contrary – celebrities are fawned over. It is their popularity that is the source of their wealth. But the inventor of a new vaccine, or the designer of a more efficient engine, they are often treated as if they do not have a right to be wealthier than the rest of us. Why?
I have lots more questions and I would like you, dear reader, to seriously try to answer them: Why is it always a major “problem” that there is economic inequality? And if the gap between rich and poor is wide, how is it the government’s job to fix the problem? How wide is too wide? Is it necessarily a bad thing for one to have more than another? Is it morally wrong? Is it true that if you extend democracy far enough (i.e., one person = one vote) you arrive at socialism? If we got rid of economic inequality, would we be rid of envy? Is the object of wealth redistribution to be free of want? Is it possible to be free of want? How can it be harmful to anyone if you are just being productive, being rewarded for your achievement, and accumulating wealth? Does the rich person’s income come at the expense of poor people? Is the reason that I cannot afford to buy a Lamborghini that someone else owns one? Yes, there is great inequality in the distribution of wealth in the U.S., but so what? Who creates the jobs? Who is better off, the poorest 5% of Americans or the poorest 90% of Africans? Does the fact that you answered, “The poorest 5% of Americans,” to that last question mean that Americans are just lucky and Africans unlucky? If so, what is the source of this luck?
(A side-note, and somebody fact-check me here: I think that the African continent has more natural resources in terms of raw materials, metals, minerals, timber, gas & oil than the rest of the world combined, yet the economy of the entire African continent is comparable in size to California's - not that California's economy is small.)
Poverty is simply defined as a lack of wealth. Poverty stricken nations in Africa have received more than half a trillion dollars in humanitarian aid from the U.S. over the past 40 years, much of it from private charities and churches, yet there is more poverty in Africa now than there was in the 1960s. Simply giving poor people money, while self-sacrificing and merciful, does not by itself eliminate the problem. Nobody has less wealth because somebody else has more.
There is great inequality in the distribution of wealth in the U.S.; the N.Y. Times reports this information about once a month and puts it in terms that imply that there is something wrong with our society because of this – that our society is falling apart (it is not, or if it is then that would not be because of disparities in income). A more meaningful and newsworthy statistic, if we are truly concerned with the welfare of the less fortunate, would be the percentage of Americans who are not able to survive given their economic resources. The (low) number of people who live below subsistence level is never reported as “news.”
When I criticize wealth redistribution and social programming, I am not criticizing the giving to people who would not otherwise be able to survive – such redistributions are out of compassion. But the fact is that only a very tiny percentage, maybe 1% of the wealth that is redistributed by our government from one group of people to another actually goes to people who would not otherwise be able to survive. (In this line of reasoning, I am treating Social Security as if it were a pension fund, though an unfunded one, rather than wealth redistribution.) Most wealth redistribution is based, not on compassion, but in my opinion it is based more on envy. And that, if true, is shameful – it is shameful that envy shapes our political culture.
Too harsh? Look at the current situation in Congress. In 2003 tax rates were cut across the board, for rich and poor alike – even those who did not pay taxes prior to 2003 got bigger “refund checks,” they effectively had a more negative tax rate. Everybody got a tax cut. The result we now know was a dramatic increase in tax revenue taken in by the U.S. Treasury, yet the Democrats in Congress have consistently fought against the tax cuts, and even the Republicans in Congress are reluctant to make the 2003 tax cuts permanent. Even knowing that raising tax rates back to pre-2003 levels would decrease the tax revenue collected by the government, these people still want to raise taxes. Why? I think it is because envy shapes our political culture. Because a majority has less and a minority has more, it is in the politicians’ interests to increase taxes on that minority which has more because it seems more fair to the majority group in the voting population, even knowing that total tax revenue would decrease as a direct result – even knowing that the majority group that has less would not be made better off economically. They just ‘feel better’ knowing that the rich and those “evil capitalist-pig” businessmen face higher tax rates. It is not about increasing tax revenue or decreasing the federal budget deficit; it is about reducing economic inequality, even when it benefits no one economically (except politicians).
Politicians are often heard saying that rich people are not paying their fair share. Well, how much is fair? If we take money from the rich by force and give it to the poor, are we increasing the general welfare? Let’s see, if there is a minority of wealthy people and a majority of relatively poor people, then doing this would increase the happiness of the majority of people (assuming that money makes people happy and that there are no other ethical considerations), and the minority of formerly rich people would be made less happy. Voilà – more happy people. Does this make it right? I would argue that this cannot result in an increase in "general welfare" but rather an increase in the welfare of one group at the expense of another. I personally would not want to benefit from the forced sacrifice of another person. I personally find the whole idea repulsive. I’d rather earn my keep. (By the way, Robin Hood did not take from the rich and give to the poor; what he did was he took from the government and gave back to the taxpayers what was rightfully theirs to begin with.)
The U.S. government doesn’t even tax wealth itself anyway. The primary tax paid to the federal government is the income tax, which is not a tax on wealth but a tax on productivity. (There is no federal sales tax, though some states have it. Sales tax would be a tax on consumption.) Income tax is a tax on physical and mental effort. The message our legislature seems to be sending is: “Don’t even bother to try!” Particularly for those whose means of support is a government check, there is a strong disincentive to work, because working and earning money will decrease your government check.
One final point: It seems to me that the primary beneficiaries of wealth redistribution programs are government bureaucrats & politicians. The freedoms of individuals and how they associate with each other (e.g., business organization) have been heavily restricted over this past century, and our increasingly centralized government has been growing in size, scope and in power to change people’s lives. The fact that this trend has continued into the twenty-first century probably explains why current poll ratings for government officials are so low, both for Congress (both parties and both houses) and the President. This trend makes many people uncomfortable, both here and abroad. Yes, Republicans have a majority in both houses of Congress and they hold the Presidency, but at this point many republican voters are even angrier with our government than those who voted for democrats. Here’s why: When Republican politicians ran for office, they made campaign promises: drill for oil in ANWR so we can be less dependent on foreign oil, fix Social Security, simplify the tax code, make the 2003 tax cuts permanent, make government smaller, etc. These promises have yet to be filled. Particularly since gaining a majority in the Senate in the 2002 elections, Republican politicians have been acting more and more like Demonrats (i.e., socialist).
Ouch
This is friggin' awsome.
Davey likey!
The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie. The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.
Davey likey!
Got a sledgehammer?
It's about time to start using them, on the heads of our "Republican" Congresscritters.
The Republicans seem to have forgotten that they are the majority party. It's either that, or they're just as big a group of statists as the Democrats.
The Dimocrats are looking at low poll numbers and gloating "See, I told you America thinks like we do!"
Uh, no we don't. The Republicans are polling low because the so-called Republican congresscritters are acting like FUCKING DIMOCRATS! Maybe if these spineless assholes would actually do WHAT WE ELECTED THEM TO DO, then their poll numbers wouldn't be low at all!
Grrrrrrrr......
When Republicans lose control of the House and Senate in 2006, and possibly the White House in 2008, they may want to ponder the following:
- Campaign Finance Reform Act (McCain-Feingold).
- Kelo vs. New London (property confiscation by the State).
- Free prescription drugs for seniors.
- No new domestic oilfields (eg. ANWR).
- No Social Security reform.
- No income tax reform.
- The abnormal influence of “moderate Republicans” (ie. really Democrats) like Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chafee on the conservative agenda.
- Supporting moderates like Arlen Specter in the Republican primaries, for fear of alienating them. Yeah, that worked well: Specter hasn’t exactly been a stalwart defender of the President’s agenda since, has he?
- Outrageous growth in government spending, in a Congress controlled by Republicans.
- Unchecked illegal immigration, and talk of “amnesty” for illegals.
- Harriet Miers. Did GWB really think that this blatant cronyism would fly? And if this choice was not cronyism, but an attempt to avoid a fight with Democrat senators, did GWB not realize that we conservatives want a showdown with these socialist scum?
Here’s the thing. Almost all of the above give conservatives a simple message: passivity.
The Republicans seem to have forgotten that they are the majority party. It's either that, or they're just as big a group of statists as the Democrats.
Ronald Reagan used his post-1984 political capital to great effect, against a Democrat-controlled Congress. GWB hasn’t even come close to The Gipper in that regard, and that with Republican control of both House and Senate. Quickly: when was the last time you heard GWB say anything remotely like: “I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves”, or “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ “?
Just about every single thing GWB and the Republican Party have done in the past two years has been in direct contradiction of those two statements.
Little wonder we conservatives are upset. We’re the ones who brought this President and this Republican Party to the dance: and they’re dancing with the others instead of with us.
The Dimocrats are looking at low poll numbers and gloating "See, I told you America thinks like we do!"
Uh, no we don't. The Republicans are polling low because the so-called Republican congresscritters are acting like FUCKING DIMOCRATS! Maybe if these spineless assholes would actually do WHAT WE ELECTED THEM TO DO, then their poll numbers wouldn't be low at all!
Grrrrrrrr......
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
What Helly said, and more
The White House is mounting a counteroffensive regarding the Left's claims that President Bush lied America into war. It's about time, I dare say. Here are some links:
Gateway Pundit: White House Corrects the New York Times
Setting the Record Straight: Sen. Levin On Iraq
Setting the Record Straight: The Washington Post On Pre-War Intelligence
JustOneMinute: Hardly Seems Fair To Quote Them Now
Captain's Quarters: The Counter-Offensive Turns Into A Team Sport
Michelle Malkin: HERE IS WHY DEMOCRATS THOUGHT THEY WOULD GET AWAY WITH IT
Michelle Malkin: BUSH BATTLES BACK, ROUND II
(AP) Bush Escalates Bitter Iraq War Debate
I love that one. It reminds me of some woman who once tried to sell that President Nixon "expanded the Vietnam War into Laos". I started talking about how the other team was shelling Americans at Khe San from inside Laos before there was any conflict in Laos. She just couldn't hear it.
Power Line: Bush Lays the Wood to Terrorists, Democrats
Hammer away, Mr. President. Hammer away.
Gateway Pundit: White House Corrects the New York Times
Setting the Record Straight: Sen. Levin On Iraq
Setting the Record Straight: The Washington Post On Pre-War Intelligence
JustOneMinute: Hardly Seems Fair To Quote Them Now
Captain's Quarters: The Counter-Offensive Turns Into A Team Sport
Michelle Malkin: HERE IS WHY DEMOCRATS THOUGHT THEY WOULD GET AWAY WITH IT
Michelle Malkin: BUSH BATTLES BACK, ROUND II
(AP) Bush Escalates Bitter Iraq War Debate
I love that one. It reminds me of some woman who once tried to sell that President Nixon "expanded the Vietnam War into Laos". I started talking about how the other team was shelling Americans at Khe San from inside Laos before there was any conflict in Laos. She just couldn't hear it.
Power Line: Bush Lays the Wood to Terrorists, Democrats
Hammer away, Mr. President. Hammer away.
A new blog feature
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
(Bill Clinton, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)
Screaming by the Left to begin in 5..... 4...... 3....
Judge Alito in 1985 said that abortion is not a right. I expect the Left to have a meltdown at any time.
But he's correct. Abortion is not a right.
Notice that I did not mention anything at all about whether or not abortion should be legal. The legality of an action or object has nothing whatsoever to do on it's basis as a right nor not. Quite honestly, we can debate whether or not abortion is legal all you want to, and that is where the debate SHOULD be. But to claim that abortion is a right is rather absurd.
I think I like this Alito fellow.
But he's correct. Abortion is not a right.
Notice that I did not mention anything at all about whether or not abortion should be legal. The legality of an action or object has nothing whatsoever to do on it's basis as a right nor not. Quite honestly, we can debate whether or not abortion is legal all you want to, and that is where the debate SHOULD be. But to claim that abortion is a right is rather absurd.
I think I like this Alito fellow.
A reminder
Democrats have been planning to launch an offensive against Republicans for some time, and they don't care who gets hurt when they do it. Isn't it nice when the enemy lays out all his dirty tricks for you to see?
Here's the difference between President Bush and the Dimocrats: Bush truly wants what is best for this country, and operates in good faith towards that goal. Dimocrats could give two shits about this country unless they're in charge, and until they are back in power will do anything and everything to obtain that power, even if it means sacrificing this country and the men and women who protect it.
Love of America vs. love of power. It really is that simple.
Here's the difference between President Bush and the Dimocrats: Bush truly wants what is best for this country, and operates in good faith towards that goal. Dimocrats could give two shits about this country unless they're in charge, and until they are back in power will do anything and everything to obtain that power, even if it means sacrificing this country and the men and women who protect it.
Love of America vs. love of power. It really is that simple.
Just amazing
How badly does the Has-Been Media want to avoid calling the rioters in fwance "muslim"?
They have now begun calling them "African-American".
This is not a joke.
They have now begun calling them "African-American".
This is not a joke.
Your one stop shop
For debunking the Global Warming myth. DANEgerus does his thing and well.... tears the Enviro-loons a new asshole.
Just think about this: As I've mentioned before, back in the 70's, all the experts were saying that the world was cooling, we were going into another ice age, and we were all gonna die. They advocated spreading soot on the polar ice in order to reverse the "imminent" cooling trend.
If we had listened to them then, San Francisco would be under water now.
Hey, wait.........
Just think about this: As I've mentioned before, back in the 70's, all the experts were saying that the world was cooling, we were going into another ice age, and we were all gonna die. They advocated spreading soot on the polar ice in order to reverse the "imminent" cooling trend.
If we had listened to them then, San Francisco would be under water now.
Hey, wait.........
Monday, November 14, 2005
Venezuela, Mexico Recall Their Ambassadors
President Bush is no longer alone in thinking Hugo Chavez to be an asshole.
Got a spare hour?
Via Instapundit, Tigerhawk has an updated and original writer approved synopsis of Steven den Beste's stratigic overview of the War on Terror.
It needs to be read by every proponent of the War on Terror, not only to remind us yet again of why we're there, but to counter all the halftruths, mistruths, and outright lies of the Left.
I'm going to save it in a Word document for my own perusal.
It needs to be read by every proponent of the War on Terror, not only to remind us yet again of why we're there, but to counter all the halftruths, mistruths, and outright lies of the Left.
I'm going to save it in a Word document for my own perusal.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Still no cure in sight
Displacement--separation of emotion from its real object and redirection of the intense emotion toward someone or something that is less offensive or threatening in order to avoid dealing directly with what is frightening or threatening.
Dr. Sanity takes on the nuances of Dr. Krauthammer's Bush Derangement Syndrome theory.
This is highly amusing and informative, yet frighteningly familiar material.
Jack Black - Fit Throwing Enviro-Infant vs Evil Oil Guys
Wife and kids are watching The Wizard of Oz on TBS (yes, Tard Turner) and one of the commercials features uber-asshat Jack Black sitting at a big table with a bunch of suits and some little kids. The suits are Big Evil Corporate Oil guys who offer Jack and the kiddies a whole bunch of candy after they bitch about the dreaded leftist boogeyman - GLOBAL WARMING! Jack sees through this "clever ploy" and throws a giant fit waving his hands and papers around in the air, mussing up his hair and yelling "GLOBAL WARMING" several times. That'll show 'em. The commercial then lists a bunch of big rich jet-airplane riding Hollywood types that live in gigantic heated and air conditioned mansions such as Tom hanks who will champion an Earth Day event - Earth to America. Don'tcha just love the implied "wake up"? "Hey America, BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID" say the anointed on behalf of the "earth".
First, when rich leftists build their fantasy world, you have to love the way they portray their enemies: "Here's some candy!" Rather than: "Well first, Jack....you blithering fucking idiot....we'll get the Big Evil Oil guys on Mars on the phone RIGHT NOW and tell them to fix global warming there too. Now apologize to these kids and get the fuck out of our office."
Next, we live on the earth and that is why we focus on EVILOILCOMPANYGLOBALWARMING here, but what about that poor little red planet next door? No love for Mars?
It's those DAMNED-SUVs!!!! EVIL OIL COMPANY GUYS!
Next, we offer the rational individual a choice (keep the Mars info in mind):
Now we all know it's the CO2 from fossil fuels (EVILOILHALIBURTONHITLER) that causes the greenhouse effect....WRONG:
OH! BUT BUT BUT We just keep making more CO2!! And the biosphere eats it up! Plants and CO2....go figure:
"emission rates of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuel have increased almost 40 percent in the past 20 years, but the amount of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere has stayed the same or even declined slightly."
Summing up:
Jack Black - Braying toad-like little Jackass out to scare you, not inform you.
You choose: Increased activity of that big ball-o-gas nuclear heater next door making the Earth and Mars warmer, OR that .11 percent of the greenhouse effect that human beings contribute to by putting out EVIL CO2 from OILCOMPANYHITLERBUSHCORPORATESUVs which is absorbed by plants that dig breathing.
What is their solution? Windmills? Solar cells? Hydro-electic? Bicycles? Little tiny cars? Laws against teenagers cruising the loop? Increased taxes to drive down demand that can be handed over to the anointed so they can spend their days pissing it away in pursuit of a perpetual motion machine? It sure as hell isn't nuclear power, or laws against rich asshat leftists flying private jets between big air conditioned mansions across the globe, or drilling and exploration, or anything else that puts affordable fuel in your car so that you can get yourself to work safely and reliably every day. They don't give a crap what the problems of the average American worker are. They're uber-wealthy and "green" and YOU should cower in fear when they throw fits about "GLOBAL WARMING"!!!!
First, when rich leftists build their fantasy world, you have to love the way they portray their enemies: "Here's some candy!" Rather than: "Well first, Jack....you blithering fucking idiot....we'll get the Big Evil Oil guys on Mars on the phone RIGHT NOW and tell them to fix global warming there too. Now apologize to these kids and get the fuck out of our office."
Next, we live on the earth and that is why we focus on EVILOILCOMPANYGLOBALWARMING here, but what about that poor little red planet next door? No love for Mars?
"for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress."
It's those DAMNED-SUVs!!!! EVIL OIL COMPANY GUYS!
Next, we offer the rational individual a choice (keep the Mars info in mind):
"the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.
Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer."
Now we all know it's the CO2 from fossil fuels (EVILOILHALIBURTONHITLER) that causes the greenhouse effect....WRONG:
95 percent of the greenhouse effect (atmospheric warming due to the trapping of solar energy that makes life possible on Earth) is due to water vapor, 99.999 percent of which is of natural origin.
The other 5 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other miscellaneous gases.
Although carbon dioxide is the most dominant of these gases by volume, comprising about 99.4 percent, the other gases trap more heat. So the contribution of carbon dioxide to the 5 percent of the greenhouse effect not due to water vapor is much less than 99.4 percent — it's about 72 percent.
Carbon dioxide, therefore, is responsible for roughly 3.6 percent of the greenhouse effect.
But carbon dioxide is produced both naturally and by humans. About 97 percent of atmospheric carbon dioxide is natural, in fact. Only about 3 percent is from human activity.
That means that only about 0.11 percent of the greenhouse effect (that is, 3 percent of 3.6 percent) is due to human releases of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
OH! BUT BUT BUT We just keep making more CO2!! And the biosphere eats it up! Plants and CO2....go figure:
"emission rates of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuel have increased almost 40 percent in the past 20 years, but the amount of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere has stayed the same or even declined slightly."
Summing up:
Jack Black - Braying toad-like little Jackass out to scare you, not inform you.
You choose: Increased activity of that big ball-o-gas nuclear heater next door making the Earth and Mars warmer, OR that .11 percent of the greenhouse effect that human beings contribute to by putting out EVIL CO2 from OILCOMPANYHITLERBUSHCORPORATESUVs which is absorbed by plants that dig breathing.
What is their solution? Windmills? Solar cells? Hydro-electic? Bicycles? Little tiny cars? Laws against teenagers cruising the loop? Increased taxes to drive down demand that can be handed over to the anointed so they can spend their days pissing it away in pursuit of a perpetual motion machine? It sure as hell isn't nuclear power, or laws against rich asshat leftists flying private jets between big air conditioned mansions across the globe, or drilling and exploration, or anything else that puts affordable fuel in your car so that you can get yourself to work safely and reliably every day. They don't give a crap what the problems of the average American worker are. They're uber-wealthy and "green" and YOU should cower in fear when they throw fits about "GLOBAL WARMING"!!!!
How dumb is the Left?
We have assloads of Leftists all screaming the "BUSH LIED" mantra non-stop. Yet, when faced with what the leaders of the Left said themselves.......
These are the very same people who are now chanting "BUSH LIED!" as a matter of faith. They had access to the same information the President did. They looked at the same intel that the President did. They had the same memos, photographs, reports, and access to material that the President did. They voted to authorise the war with Iraq.
And now they want to claim that the President lied.
That makes the Left, and it's supporters, some of the dumbest people on the face of the earth. They are either so mind-boggling incompetant that they should never be allowed in the Capitol Building ever again, or they're lying their asses off for political gain.
I say it's both.
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
These are the very same people who are now chanting "BUSH LIED!" as a matter of faith. They had access to the same information the President did. They looked at the same intel that the President did. They had the same memos, photographs, reports, and access to material that the President did. They voted to authorise the war with Iraq.
And now they want to claim that the President lied.
That makes the Left, and it's supporters, some of the dumbest people on the face of the earth. They are either so mind-boggling incompetant that they should never be allowed in the Capitol Building ever again, or they're lying their asses off for political gain.
I say it's both.
Who Lied ...
... about WMDs? I forget now - who lied?
...AND FURTHERMORE: Matthew Heidt makes a strong case, and has something to say to our Democratic *cough/spit* leaders: "...repeating lies every day to get back at the President that beat you doesn't make them true; it makes you a traitor to this country and disloyal to the troops who are on this day protecting you." He carefully outlines the evidence and comes to the following conclusion:
...AND FURTHERMORE: Matthew Heidt makes a strong case, and has something to say to our Democratic *cough/spit* leaders: "...repeating lies every day to get back at the President that beat you doesn't make them true; it makes you a traitor to this country and disloyal to the troops who are on this day protecting you." He carefully outlines the evidence and comes to the following conclusion:
While the garden variety liberal moonbat hanging on every word coming out of Cindy Sheehan’s piehole may not know that these charges of manipulation intelligence are false, liberals in the Senate are knowingly LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE every day. They are lying to gain an electoral advantage at the expense of the War on Terror and our troops. Paris is burning, Jordan, Britain, Spain, Turkey, Bali, Indonesia have been recently bombed, and the Aussies just rolled up a massive plot by AQ. The stakes in the War on Terror could not be higher and yet the Democrats shamelessly lie every day so that they can destroy the President of the United States. That is UNPATRIOTIC, and those who engage in this scheme are traitors of the lowest form. If you are a liberal reading this post and you followed all of those links and read that material, you now know. If you persist in this campaign of lies, you are UNPATRIOTIC, a TRAITOR, and SCUMBAG as well.Go and read the whole thing - and check out the frenzied moonbats in his comments, too. I think somebody struck a nerve!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)