Don’t Listen to Me…I’m Just a Right-Wing Extremist

I’ve been really busy lately and am now as sick as a dying dog (my friends would argue that it’s my refusal to take a break that’s to blame), but since the local pharmacist is going to take TWO HOURS to fill my prescription for codeine, I’m going to channel the body aches, the fever, the racking cough and the near-migraine into a blog. (I bet it’s nothing compared to Steve’s predicament–being a tax guy who just blitzed the end of tax season!)

So much has happened in the news this week that I’m not sure where to start, but it all ties in. I guess I’ll start where the madness began: the DHS report released on Monday, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. Unfortunately, I’m not kidding. They actually released this report. Our liberal readers will jump up and down and scream, “they released a report on left-wing radicals in January!!!” Here’s my beef: that report released earlier this year named specific groups, listed the aims of those groups and highlighted specific incidents (such as bombings, break-ins, flooding homes and threatening personal violence) and gave police reports as their sources. The report on “right-wing extremism” does no such thing. It’s very vague. And here’s how it starts off: “the economic downturn and the election of the first African American President present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.” It claims that white supremacist groups are on the rise, and points out “opposition to abortion or immigration” as key indicators of right-wing extremism. Its sources? Not police reports…more like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has named the American Legion a “hate group” for opposing illegal immigration.

Go read it for yourself. Put down your drink before you do, or you’ll be choking on it. Trust me.

It’s no coincidence that the report was released just days before the massive Tax Day Tea Party protests across the country. It was no secret that this was coming, organizers started over a month ago planning this shindig. The Tea Parties were a throwback to the historic Boston tea party, when American colonists dumped shiploads of tea into Boston Harbor to stop the tea tax levied by the Crown without any say in the colonies. Today, we’re angry about being told that it’s our “patriotic duty” to pay more taxes (don’t give me any of that “it’s only the rich” BS, either, because ALL taxes will rise eventually thanks to the Democrats’ outrageous spending). Yesterday’s massive nationwide protests are the backlash that was inevitable, and all of those registered Republicans who couldn’t stand to plug their noses and vote for McCain showed up with people from all walks of life to send the message that we’re not interested in being taxed to death. The aforementioned report is the Democrat government’s version of a preemptive strike.

Not that they really needed it. The MSM did a remarkable hatchet job all on their own, no doubt in an effort to protect Barkey’s messiah-like aura. Anderson Cooper stooped to the level of sexual innuendo by calling them “teabagging” parties, fat bastard James Wolcott from Vanity Fair put his fingers in his ears like a two-year-old and said, “they didn’t appear on the front page of my newspapers, so I WON’T believe they happened!”, and CNN’s Susan Roesgen whined that it was offensive to call Obama a socialist (this after gushing over a paper-mache effigy of Bush with devil horns and a Hitler ‘stache as an “excellent lookalike”). The message? If we don’t agree with you, we’re going to do our level best to make you all look like the radicals that our Democrat DHS says you are!

Then, today, in an amazing, brazen act of hypocrisy, Obama went to Mexico and held hands with Felipe Calderon (well, not really, but what happened is just as nauseating as watching Bush hold hands with the same Saudi king that Obama bowed to not long ago), declaring–and I do quote–“how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws because even under current law, trafficking illegal firearms, sending them across the border, is illegal. That’s something we can stop.”

This is where Philip goes, “oh, REALLY?”

I’d like to know exactly how Obama plans to do that. He not only refuses to secure the border, he also openly announces a brewing plan for amnesty–all the while accusing those of us who want the current laws enforced EXTREMISTS. How does he intend to pull off this heroic act? Send the National Guard to the border to seal it off with orders to let any “workers” coming North to pass by? How does he think the drugs are getting here? How ’bout we look at something that happened right here in Phoenix. In 1999, Phoenix police officer Marc Atkinson spotted a suspicious vehicle and pulled it over. The three men inside hid around a corner and ambushed Atkinson; an armed American citizen had the cojones to return fire in defense of the fallen officer and hold one suspect for officers responding to the scene. Today, that citizen would be labeled an extremist along with the rest of us.

But not only does Barkey swear to stop the flow of cash and guns South and the flow of drugs North, he yet again repeats the tired, debunked lie that 90% of all of the guns being used by the cartels come from the United States (I’m not gonna re-iterate my point, just read it here). The Arizona Repugnant repeats that lie and instead of “reporting” the story of Obama’s visit to Mexico, it gives a personal spin that makes it reek of a badly-placed editorial. So much for journalistic ethics.

What’s really funny is that in a related piece, the same freakin’ paper points out that a .50-caliber anti-aircraft machine gun was recovered in Mexico, mounted to a truck. Where’d it come from? Not the US, but you wouldn’t know that from the tacit omission by the writer who submitted the garbage for print.

If we can commit $350 million to stepped-up enforcement on guns and drugs on the border, then we can sure as hell start enforcing the immigration laws that our government has, so far, refused to enforce. Guess what? This human cost that you’re pointing out here, Barkey–THIS IS THE HUMAN COST OF IGNORING THE LAW AND GIVING A FREE PASS TO THOSE WHO FLAUNT IT. We don’t need reform. Our immigration laws are the way they are for a reason, and guest workers have the H2-A guest worker visa now to make themselves legal with. Stop bending over for the shamnesty crowd or you become the laughingstock you say your predecessor was.

But don’t listen to me. I’m just a right-wing extremist. I believe in the rule of law, liberty for all law-abiding citizens and LEGAL immigrants and small government that allows me to keep what I work hard to earn.

All the things that spell disaster, right?

Hmph…no pun intended.

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “Don’t Listen to Me…I’m Just a Right-Wing Extremist

  1. Mel, it’s always nice to hear someone speak some sense. It makes me think maybe the whole world hasn’t turned upside down yet (but it’s getting closer). Hope you feel better. I’d tell you to take a break but I’m the same way. AndyB, NH.

  2. For anyone dumb enough to buy into the notion of protesting “higher taxes” the other day, this video is for you.

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224275&title=nationwide-tax-protests

    I, like most people in this country, make less than $250,000 per year, and that being the case, it would be not only inane, but purely idiotic, to join one of the so called “tea parties” that drew hundreds of people across the country on tax day.

    What both gives me pause and elicits a hearty chuckle is the fact that these people, in my honest and humble opinion, have no fucking clue what they were protesting. The vast, vast, so incredibly vast majority of the country is receiving tax BREAKS under the current administration,​ but leave it to sophomoric half wits that label themselves republicans to come up with the brilliant idea of protesting the fact that they too get to reap the benefits of said tax break. That’s right folks, all these dummies you’ve seen on TV promising to attend a tea party, or the more laughable offense of organizing one, have once again decided, out of mere ignorance, to support something that doesn’t quite jive with their own best interests.

    You want to know what all the fuss was about, really? These complete retards are upset that marginal tax rates on the rich are going up an appalling three fucking percent. That’s right, 3%. And let me tell you, if you’re a millionaire, and complaining about a lousy three percent, you’re a douche. Take the owner of my former (and now defunct) company. The day after the election, she took our office out to lunch, and the conversation took a predictable turn towards the election results, where she asked us if any of us were happy that Obama won. I worked with a bunch of brain dead conservatives, so naturally I was the only one who responded by saying yes. Her retort was typical of a con, and that was to express dissatisfaction​ at the fact that, despite boasting of pulling in $15 million dollars a year, she would now have to pay something along the lines of an extra $3,000 in taxes. If anyone knows me, they know that if she were anyone besides the person cutting my check, I’d let her know how fucking ridiculous her position was. But I kept my mouth shut. But this is the greedy frame of mind these jackals have. I can tell you that if I were making $15 million a year, I would not be crying over a few measly thou.

    So, back to these dolts who ended up wasting God knows how many thousands of dollars on tea bags, they were out there in the street, complaining about their tax breaks. That’s what it boils down to. And I’ll let you in on a little secret, they’re not really protesting taxes, it’s just an excuse to be republicans and do what they do best: act like complete douchebags. They’re still a little upset at the whooping they received on Slapsgiving. (It’s what I affectionately refer to election day as) Didn’t you notice how small the crowds were? Of course they were small, the participants were conservative, and like the rest of the country, there’s only a finite amount of people that still buy into their retarded ideology. So I say, take heart, teabaggers, and rejoice in the fact that you fucking ingrates get a tax break from a “tax and spend liberal”…

    P.S. Here’s what happens at these tea parties when you give the mic to a rational person who doesn’t have to swallow a pharmacy to leave the house:

  3. “The vast, vast, so incredibly vast majority of the country is receiving tax BREAKS under the current administration”

    A whopping 13 dollars in a bi-weekly paycheck while ripping off more than five times of that from employers to pay for liberal idiocy is not what we call a break.

    What I call a break is a fair tax or a flat tax. But in a liberal world where the strong and independent are non-existant and the weak can only scream louder (while they “chuckle”) while their Messiah reaps in $3M and they run around unemployed waited for their water/electric/gas bills to miraculously be marked “paid.”

    “I, like most people in this country, make less than $250,000 per year”

    It’s not the point. The point is whether or not you can live your life without depending on the government. Some of us don’t take handouts (or in your case, “breaks”) and never will. Your kind could never appreciate fully what any of those handouts will get you.

    In a nutshell, the tone of your e-mail is transparent, Robert. It’s the courage and the rejection of handouts from real Americans that piss you off. They won’t play your game and they never will.

    Be prepared to be pissed off for a very long time now that America is really responding while your man continues to sell you out on every issue he buffaloed you into believing was important to him because he really cared and lost sleep over you at night.

  4. “A whopping 13 dollars in a bi-weekly paycheck while ripping off more than five times of that from employers to pay for liberal idiocy is not what we call a break.”

    Hm, and a three percent tax hike is not what a sane person would call fascism. And please let me know how and where this supposed “rip off” occurs. I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again, and likely get no response (as has been the case in the past), but where was this feigned outage when marginal tax rates were where they were supposed to be, at 90%, under a republican president, I might add. Where were the protests then? Where were the accusations of thievery and fascism? You people are such incredible hypocrites, and trust me when I say incredible, I mean the literal form of the word, not credible.

    “What I call a break is a fair tax or a flat tax. But in a liberal world where the strong and independent are non-existant and the weak can only scream louder”

    You’re part of the weak, you idiot! You don’t make more than $250,000 per year. You have been brainwashed into believing that any taxation is bad, and like I’ve pointed out before, you’re a freeloader who wants it all for free. Here’s a better question. Since you see fit to see a two class system, why on earth do you advocate for tax breaks for the wealthy, who don’t need them? Why not support tax breaks for the people who actually need them?

    “It’s not the point”

    Yes, it most certainly is. You’re a selfish person, and as such, you should only be concerned about something when it affects you. Seeing as how this tax hike (it’s not even really a hike, it’s letting insane tax cuts expire) doesn’t affect you, you shouldn’t be crying about it.

    “The point is whether or not you can live your life without depending on the government. Some of us don’t take handouts (or in your case, “breaks”) and never will. Your kind could never appreciate fully what any of those handouts will get you.”

    Steve, you just made my point for me. Currently, the rich are the ones getting the handout in the form of tax breaks. So apparently, I want handouts because I support the marginal tax hike, but your rich can stand on their own and don’t take handouts because they receive said tax break. Your logic is twisted at best, and more to the point, non existent. I’m sure it’s easy to sit there and defend your rich clients, and simultaneously shit all over the people who actually do hard work for a living, accusing them of looking for handouts, completely ignoring the fact that the only people receiving handouts are the rich in this country. This is what I mean by working against your own best interests…

    “In a nutshell, the tone of your e-mail is transparent, Robert. It’s the courage and the rejection of handouts from real Americans that piss you off”

    It’s not courage, it’s pure idiocy. These morons will receive tax breaks, and they’re still finding a reason to fucking complain! That would be like blacks protesting integration or the voting rights act, or you arguing against gay marriage. It simply doesn’t make sense.

    What really pisses me off is the blinders you people put on when it suits you. The last president touted his desire and ability to wiretap your communications without your knowledge or consent, and with no legal permission to do so, and we didn’t hear a peep out of you. I think Hunter over at the Daily Kos said it best (and along these same lines) when he said:

    “We’ve had a president who decided that he could revoke the citizenship of Americans based on his own say-so — and no conservatives were worried about their loss of rights. We’ve had a government assert that it could spy on any communications, without warrant or cause — and no conservatives took to the streets, alarmed at the threat to their Constitutional protections. We found out we went to war over a weapons program that didn’t exist — oops. We found out that we subjected innocent, though brown, people to imprisonment without recourse, and others to torture so cruel that it rendered them mentally incompetent. We buried the nation in a mountain of debt — well, them’s the breaks. We forked over billions of dollars in giveaways to oil companies that were already making larger profits than any other companies in the history of the world — hell, gotta keep John Galt in caviar. None of it raised a peep from any of you, you were all fine with it. The government could do no wrong — except not going far enough.

    But if returning to the tax policies that existed before Bush is the thing that’s got a bee in your bonnet, claiming the end of the republic is at hand — go for it. If you’ve suddenly decided that preventing government efforts to stave off a second Great Depression is the thing you’re going to hang your collective hats on, or that saving one of the prime manufacturing sectors still left in the country is a bridge too far, by all means protest.”

    So, Steve, pardon me if I tell you to kiss my pucker because I don’t share your phony outrage over a three percent tax hike that won’t affect you in the least.

  5. I was at one of the tea parties in San Diego. There were at least 5000 people on hand. It is just a waste to time to use sweet reason to reason with the unreasonable. Let the liberals growl; that is all they know how to do.

  6. “Let the liberals growl; that is all they know how to do.”

    Says the guy who showed up to protest the fact that he is more than likely getting a tax CUT…

  7. Robert, the crowds were hardly what I’d characterize as “small.” Here in Phoenix, there were somewhere between 5,000 and 7,000 in attendance.

    $13 a week as a tax cut? Maybe for now. That won’t be permanently sustainable. And I just love how you say that raising taxes on the rich was such a fantastic idea, yet liberals want to keep as many jobs here in the US as they can. Let me put something out there for you…a friend of mine just got laid off. His job was outsourced last month to a call center in India. Why? His employer wanted a way to cut costs so the big boys could keep more money in their pockets. Three percent of tens of millions of dollars is still a lot of money, and the game that’s being played is going to ruin any chances of keeping those jobs here.

    Just because we don’t have as much doesn’t mean that we have any right to make those who have more give up more. That’s not what the founding fathers had in mind. If I were to become a published novelist and strike it rich, I wouldn’t want nearly half of my earnings swiped by the feds simply because I make more than the majority of Americans. That’s not fair.

    What was being protested was the fact that current spending is creating an economic problem that will one day have to be paid for. You can’t spend like this and not have a consequence. I don’t want my nieces and nephews to pay for our mistakes.

    Oh, and your remarks about spending us into debt? That’s funny. Bush was an idiot for the TARP thing, but Obama expanded it and spent exponentially more. And if you’re going to quote DailyKos then don’t gripe about us quoting FOX (which is a legitimate news agency).

  8. “Robert, the crowds were hardly what I’d characterize as “small.” Here in Phoenix, there were somewhere between 5,000 and 7,000 in attendance.”

    Those figures are drawn from objective attempts to estimate crowd sizes, such as police accounts or estimates made by reporters. Organizers of these events have strong incentives to exaggerate crowd sizes. Participants in them may have some of the same incentives, and it is notoriously difficult for people to accurately estimate crowd sizes once attendance has reached more than a few dozen individuals. That being said, 250,000 people throughout the entire country is actually quite small. For instance, protests in favor of immigration reform drew several million participants in the spring of 2006, including several individual events of at least 300,000. Likewise, anti-war protests in 2003 involved attendance of at least 300,000 in a single American city (New York) on a single day. So, I suppose it’s all relative….

    “$13 a week as a tax cut? Maybe for now. That won’t be permanently sustainable”

    But a few thousand extra dollars in the pocket of someone pulling $15 million, that’s totally okay, right?

    “And I just love how you say that raising taxes on the rich was such a fantastic idea, yet liberals want to keep as many jobs here in the US as they can”

    It is a wonderful idea, but not a panacea. It’s a step in the right direction. It’s a clever camouflage to blame “high” taxes on disappearing jobs, but any rational person can look at the situation as a whole and come to the conclusion that cheap labor, coupled with a laughable tariff system, are largely responsible for the outsourcing of jobs. From a business standpoint, it’s a great idea to move my manufacturing plant to Mexico where I can hire six people for the cost of employing one American. But that attitude is so pernicious and destructive. Try to find a piece of clothing with a “Made in the USA” label, it’s tough to find anything that was made in this country. And those responsible for the greed that results in loss of American jobs should be ashamed of themselves. Just yesterday, I heard some pretty astounding numbers about taxes. If Reagan hadn’t come into office and tinkered with marginal tax rates, the treasury would have an additional three billion some odd dollars. I know it must feel good to sit back and say “it’s my money” (when it really isn’t) and these taxes are unfair (which they aren’t), but there’s a pretty pressing question that I never hear asked, and that is, how on earth do you expect to start paying down the national debt? This isn’t a problem that should be shifted to future generations, and it’s pretty apparent to me that republicans only seem to give a damn about any debt when a Democrat is in office, and it’s bullshit. We’ve had well over 70% of this nation’s debt accrued in the last 28 years, by three republican presidents (Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr.), and not one republican has stepped and said that unnecessary spending was out of control. First, it was somehow necessary to collect more weapons and get to the moon before Russia, then it was fighting an illegal and illegitimate war. But only now that the government has no choice but to step in and try to stave off another republican great depression, do you people have a problem with spending and debt. I mean, am I the only one who sees the utter insanity of that? So yeah, debt is a problem, but please don’t pretend that you give a shit if and how it gets paid for, not after twenty eight years of zipped shut mouthpieces…

    “Just because we don’t have as much doesn’t mean that we have any right to make those who have more give up more”

    No, but the fact that they use more of the commons to make themselves rich does indeed require that they give up more. I have two great republican presidents to back me up on this (granted, from beyond the grave): Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. They understood the fairness of this issue, and it really cuts to the core of this argument. I know that for the last eight years, the rich have grown accustomed to paying less in taxes, but to let Bush’s cuts expire is not a death sentence, hell in my opinion, it’s not enough. I say roll back the Reagan tax cuts. In the period from the 1930s up until the early 80’s, this country enjoyed the greatest prosperity in our recorded history. I really can’t be the only one connecting these dots here. We need a fundamental change in our tax policies that will bring prosperity and manufacturing, and pride in our work back to this country. We need to stop relying on the financial system to keep us afloat. That isn’t capitalism, it’s monetarism, and it doesn’t work. What’s really not sustainable is going from the financial services sector accounting for 3% of our GDP in 1980 to having it loom around 30% today, or rather, pre burst. It’s insane to put that much stock into, well, stock. It’s merely moving money around in circles. Think of it as a decades old game of musical chairs. The music has stopped, and there’s no chair left for this sector.

    “What was being protested was the fact that current spending is creating an economic problem that will one day have to be paid for. You can’t spend like this and not have a consequence. I don’t want my nieces and nephews to pay for our mistakes.”

    Yeah, see my comment above about ignoring the problem until a democrat got into office. George Bush just left us with an extra five trillion in national debt and a $1.3 trillion budget deficit, and I just think you woke up a little too late, opposing only bank bailouts, which by the way, was a nice moment of solidarity between you guys and the rest of society…

    “Oh, and your remarks about spending us into debt? That’s funny”

    No, it isn’t, it’s sad. It’s sad that of the last four presidents, three of whom claim membership of the fiscally conservative party, only one was able to control (and I use the term loosely) debt, balance a budget and leave a surplus, which was promptly squandered, likely on super bowl parties and weekend trips to Vegas…

    “Bush was an idiot for the TARP thing, but Obama expanded it and spent exponentially more”

    Wrong. It’s pretty tough to spend more than five trillion dollars in three months. And if you’re counting TARP money only, be sure to add to the $700 billion, the two trillion the Fed lent out in our name as well…

    “And if you’re going to quote DailyKos then don’t gripe about us quoting FOX (which is a legitimate news agency).”

    I don’t recall griping about you quoting FOX News, but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking it’s an actual news agency, because it isn’t. If this were the 1970’s, FOX would never be able to get away with branding themselves news. Never.

  9. “Hm, and a three percent tax hike is not what a sane person would call fascism.”

    A one-percent tax hike is too much given how much many of these people pay as it is.

    Three of my biggest accounts reported losses for the year, Rob. Guess what they get to do now? They are carrying back those losses to 2007 and 2006 to GET BACK the hundreds of thousands all of them paid in in the years they were doing great.

    When the affluent lose and they recover all the tax they paid legally in the last two years, which Americans do you think will get left holding the bag?

    Moreover; what will you do? Create a bill blocking an American’s right to carryback losses?

    “You’re a selfish person, and as such, you should only be concerned about something when it affects you.”

    Ah, but I’m not a selfish person thus the real reason you are mad at me for my position on this. You scream so loud but don’t pay any attention. I do not make $250K per year. But I can take care of myself without Obambi’s unfair tax scales. I bitch because I’m an American, not because I make over $250K per year. Your argument that portrays me as selfish doesn’t even make sense when you look at it with logic. But it’s usually a good sign when you can get a liberal to call you selfish, homophobic, racist, or hateful. It’s usually precisely about 10 minutes before they’re crying, spitting, and sputtering.

    “The last president touted his desire and ability to wiretap your communications”

    Taxation of businesses affects us all. Wiretapping (another blown-out-of proportion liberal screamfest) does not. Do you know how many cell phones are in America? Have you any clue how many people work at the NSA?

    I’d be willing to bet that more Americans are affected by your welfare bills than they were by listening to cell phone calls of guys named Muhammed in who calls his buddy in Beirut 10-minutes after a bomb goes off.

    Say, perhaps Obama should spend more taxpayer money to check those spying records.

    For you and Dennis Kucinich, it’d be the greatest thing since “The Diary of Anne Frank.”

    “It’s not courage, it’s pure idiocy.”

    It’s never idiocy to take care of yourself without government intervention. But then again, any pro-American position manages to piss you off anyway.

    “preventing government efforts to stave off a second Great Depression”

    LOL, a recession occurred that weeded out the weak from the worthy. This is capitalism’s way of weeding things out like failed CEO’s and companies. The government never has that natural flow because everything is regulated. Nothing works under that kind of communism. So, what you do is stretch a “recession” like Obama who said “crisis” more times than Keith Olbermann referred to him as “The First Black Man” to do something, in a “second Great Depression” to frighten Americans into conforming to policies that only add on to the failed dead wood that already exists in like-minded folks as yourself, Barack Obama, and Jimmy Carter.

    The only difference is, only a few chosen of you will prosper from it. Like Obama, like Carter. You’ll be in the same place you are right now in five years and nothing will change that but you.

    Perhaps then you’ll finally understand that your “pucker” isn’t worth kissing, afterall.

  10. “A one-percent tax hike is too much given how much many of these people pay as it is.”

    That is quite possibly the dumbest thing you have ever said. All that’s being done is to correct a wrong. Like I said, where was this outrage when it was 90%? Where was it even during the Clinton years, where Obama’s taking it back? This is phony indignation, pure and simple, and I, for one, am glad that no one is listening to you.

    “Three of my biggest accounts reported losses for the year, Rob. Guess what they get to do now? They are carrying back those losses to 2007 and 2006 to GET BACK the hundreds of thousands all of them paid in in the years they were doing great.”

    Boo fucking hoo. Cry me a river. No one cares.

    “When the affluent lose and they recover all the tax they paid legally in the last two years, which Americans do you think will get left holding the bag?”

    So, we’re in agreement, the rich get preferential treatment, and get to screw over the middle class. Great, so glad we agree!

    “Moreover; what will you do? Create a bill blocking an American’s right to carryback losses?”

    Makes sense to me. Why should they get to retroactively cover losses by stealing from the rest of us? We can’t…

    “I do not make $250K per year. But I can take care of myself without Obambi’s unfair tax scales”

    Expalin to me how it’s unfair. What was unfair was cutting already low taxes on the wealthy and shifting the burden to the middle class. Hundreds of economists can’t be wrong about this. It was warned against, and the outcome was exactly what they said it would be, the middle class footing the bill. I can’t think of one economist, on either side of the aisle, that has come out and said let’s have another round of tax cuts for the wealthy. Trickle down economics doesn’t work, it never has worked, and to hold onto the notion that it does is frankly childish and leads back to that adage that says trickle down economics does nothing but produce a nation of peons. It was referred to as voodoo economics for a reason…

    “I bitch because I’m an American, not because I make over $250K per year. Your argument that portrays me as selfish doesn’t even make sense when you look at it with logic”

    Ah, but it does. You have been conditioned, over a number of years, to accept and defend a nonsensical position, and you even alluded to it in an earlier comment. The tax cuts for the rich allow them to retroactively cover losses, leaving the rest of the country footing the bill. This to you is fair, but to go back to Clinton era rates, where we had the lowest debt accrual, and even a budget surplus, is somehow socialist. This is insane!

    “But it’s usually a good sign when you can get a liberal to call you selfish, homophobic, racist, or hateful. It’s usually precisely about 10 minutes before they’re crying, spitting, and sputtering.”

    Says the party who threatened WWIII if Minnesota seats its democratically elected senator…

    “Taxation of businesses affects us all. Wiretapping (another blown-out-of proportion liberal screamfest) does not. Do you know how many cell phones are in America? Have you any clue how many people work at the NSA?”

    Are you serious right now? Taxation of business means nothing to me, but violating the fourth amendment undermines the very democratic republic that was created over 200 years ago. How can you even say something so outlandish? Your predictable (and demonstrably false) argument will go something like this: if you tax precious corporations any more (never mind the fact that they don’t pay their goddamned taxes in the first place), they’ll be forced to go overseas to find labor. Bull. Shit. Why is it we never had this problem in the 1950s, Steve? Marginal rates were at 90%. Why were jobs aplenty back then if the tax system was so unjust? The problem is not tax rates, it’s unfair trade policies, and until that issue is resolved, we’ll continue to get ass raped in the name of the mythical free market. Think about the fact that damn near every other industrialized nation on earth is protecting its economy right now with trade restrictions and rational tariff laws. Protectionism is one of those words that has been demonized by the right to the point where average idiots don’t even know what protectionism is, yet they’ll tell you that it’s bad.

    “I’d be willing to bet that more Americans are affected by your welfare bills than they were by listening to cell phone calls of guys named Muhammed in who calls his buddy in Beirut 10-minutes after a bomb goes off.”

    That’s hilarious for two reasons. One, I don’t collect welfare, and two, unlike that phony war that was used to justify said wiretaps, welfare is actually budgeted for, and at less than two percent of the federal budget, I’d find something else to bitch about, because that phony suit of compassion you claim to put on for the poor is wearing thin. We wouldn’t want to seem calloused, now would we?

    “It’s never idiocy to take care of yourself without government intervention. But then again, any pro-American position manages to piss you off anyway.”

    Thank you for wonderfully demonstrating that idiocy. You see Steve, it is pure idiocy to argue against something you will only benefit from. I’m sure in your world, you’d like to see Veterans protesting the VA, retirees refusing pension payments, and the disabled wheeling themselves away from a Social Security check as fast as their weak little arms can manage. So, in reality, it’s you who are pissed at the pro American ideal of paying your fair share…

    “LOL, a recession occurred that weeded out the weak from the worthy”

    Wow, you’re kind of a bastard. There’s that indomitable conservative spirit that makes the average American physically ill and got you frauds ousted from power, only to be lost in the proverbial woods, relying on pathetic nimrods who refer to the bulk of the country as “the lower 48” to help them regain some semblance of power. Have being losers for the foreseeable future…

    “This is capitalism’s way of weeding things out like failed CEO’s and companies”

    And people. You forgot the people who were taken advantage of. You know, those folks that you and pieces of shit like Rick Santelli would call ‘losers’.

    “The government never has that natural flow because everything is regulated”

    Right, regulated. Notice how the government has never created a clusterfuck to the poor house like your precious free market, which, by the way, only exists because the boogeyman of government allows it to.

    “a “second Great Depression” to frighten Americans into conforming to policies that only add on to the failed dead wood that already exists in like-minded folks as yourself, Barack Obama, and Jimmy Carter.”

    Frighten Americans. Check. Conforming to policies. Check. Dead wood. Yup,you just described the republican party! I forget, how did the patriot act pass? Oh, that’s right, anthrax was sent to the only two senators who could have stopped it! And who was it that conjured up images of mushroom clouds and VX nerve agents in your soda? It was a democrat, right? No, stupid! I love how the second you freaks are out of power, you start projecting all your destructive behavior onto the opposition in the hopes that the small sliver of society that grew up on a diet of paint chips and Reagan-labeled vegetables (ketchup) will swallow this drivel. It seems to work fine in this forum though, so kudos!

  11. “Boo fucking hoo. Cry me a river. No one cares.”

    Of course you don’t care if business owners lose hundreds of thousands or millions a year. That disables them to employ people leaving the people dependent on the government, making them no different than Robert! Of course, it fits your agenda and your attitude, I wasn’t looking for your sympathy, I was explaining the logic.

    “So, we’re in agreement, the rich get preferential treatment, and get to screw over the middle class.”

    What’s preferential about being the ones who take the risks that may make them money one year and grants them massive losses in years following tax years in which Democrats gained power in the White House? That’s not a tax treatment you airhead. If you made 20,000 last year and then reported a net operating loss next year, you can carryback the loss to recover the whole $250 in tax you paid. The opportunity is open to anyone. But the fact is, the market reacted to the blood-sucking lazy of this country who think it’s inhumane to work a 12-hour shift but spend just as many of those hours online defending facism.

    “Taxation of business means nothing to me”

    Of course it doesn’t (on an emotional level) because you could never run a business. But, it DOES affect you when prices go up and quality of product goes down because high taxes prevent business owners from hiring enough people to properly produce.

    “if you tax precious corporations any more (never mind the fact that they don’t pay their goddamned taxes in the first place”

    Again, you wouldn’t know. And you’re factually wrong. Corporations pay 35% of their profit. Your arguments are never based on fact and that alone proves it. It’s really quite simple. Stop trying to muddy it up with imaginary scenarios of what isn’t.

    “The problem is not tax rates, it’s unfair trade policies”

    Again it is a fact that corporations pay 35% of their profit. It is also a fact that liberals who stomp for Iran could never support isolationism anyway, so what’s your point?

    “One, I don’t collect welfare, and two, unlike that phony war that was used to justify said wiretaps”

    Is it sincerely your argument that GW Bush went to war for the purposes of listening to your..ahem…interesting telephone conversations?

    “You see Steve, it is pure idiocy to argue against something you will only benefit from.”

    Dumbass, I prepare income tax returns. The more complexed the Internal Revenue Code gets, the more I can charge. I am arguing against complex tax laws and fight to make things simpler. Just how is this something only I will benefit from?

    “Wow, you’re kind of a bastard. There’s that indomitable conservative spirit that makes the average American physically ill and got you frauds ousted from power”

    I guarantee you, more government dependent people will suffer more than those strong enough to survive as Americans are. Those are the ones who drove the quality down and they were weeded out. Unfortunately, there are only so many cushy government positions available. Ask Obambi.

    “You forgot the people who were taken advantage of.”

    No such thing. Weak people accepted bad credit terms and high interest rates because they had bad credit and were high risks. That’s the way it is. Pay your bills on time and this won’t be an issue. Stop ignoring the calls that say “unavailable” on your caller ID. That is free market determining the worthy and the trash. What government intervention does is says that the worthy and the trash are equal no matter what. It falls into the toilet because there is no natural flow of elimination within the government. Conditions are still poor at Walter Reed, or had you not heard? Amazingly, we don’t hear of it during Obambi’s tenure. As we would never hear about the true reasons – government paid people benefiting from Affirmative Action who’ve never heard the expression: “you got time to lean, you got time to clean.”

    “Notice how the government has never created a clusterfuck to the poor house like your precious free market, which, by the way, only exists because the boogeyman of government allows it to.”

    Perhaps you can explain the new unions created for government employees then? Idiots in the Democratic party created unions to fight the scary free-marketers, isn’t a “union” when one is working for the government kind of redundant?

    “I forget, how did the patriot act pass?”

    I forget, did Obama repeal the Act yet?

    In a nutshell, your carcus is still not one worth kissing, especially when one observes the basis of your positions. Plus, it would require peeling off that large number Obama has stuck on it. Be careful with that, it could remove hair.

    It’s not a “crisis” when the malls are still jam packed and when I still have to wait for 90 minutes to get a table at Red Lobster.

  12. “Of course you don’t care if business owners lose hundreds of thousands or millions a year”

    Damn right I don’t. Fuck them. They don’t care if I lose, and in point of fact, they’re quite active in seeing average people lose.

    “That disables them to employ people leaving the people dependent on the government, making them no different than Robert!”

    I hate to burst your bubble, but taxes have absolutely nothing to do with that. Anyone with half a brain (and I apologize if this excludes you) knows that incentives are abound for outsourcing jobs in this country. It’s merely a convenient distraction to blame raising already low taxes. And it would behoove you to acknowledge that you are just as dependent on the government than the next person. It maintains the upkeep for the roads and bridges that allow you to get to your job. It makes sure that the food you eat isn’t laden with poisonous bacteria. It makes sure that the air you breathe isn’t going to kill you. So before you haste to trash the very government that provides you with the hubris to consider yourself “self reliant”, remember where you’d be without it.

    “What’s preferential about being the ones who take the risks”

    There’s risk involved in sitting on your ass waiting for dividend checks to arrive in the mail?

    “That’s not a tax treatment you airhead”

    What the fuck do you call it? Where the fuck is my massive tax cut? Where’s my bailout? Why don’t I get to externalize costs while internalizing profit? If you can’t see where the preferential treatment lies, you’re either blind or a complete shill, and I’m pretty sure I can call it correctly…

    “But the fact is, the market reacted to the blood-sucking lazy of this country who think it’s inhumane to work a 12-hour shift but spend just as many of those hours online defending facism. [sic]”

    Lazy? America is lazy? Do you realize that there are fucking engineers working at the Home Depot to make ends meet, because some jack off in a suit can hire someone on an H-1B Visa to do the same work for much less? There is no pandemic of lazy in this country, just assholes who seek to defend the worship of the dollar for the sake of the bottom line. Remember when John McCain offered $50 an hour for Americans to pick lettuce? He suffered from the same delusion as you, thinking that there are folks out there that just won’t do certain jobs. It’s a myth that has been shattered, but you simply refuse to acknowledge that.

    “But, it DOES affect you when prices go up and quality of product goes down because high taxes prevent business owners from hiring enough people to properly produce”

    When has that ever been the case? You talk all this nonsense that high taxes are killing business and costing jobs, but history doesn’t support your idiotic claims. Everyone knows that the decades of highest post-WWII growth rates also had, by far, the highest tax rates in US history. So this notion that higher taxes will somehow kill business is ludicrous, and has no basis in reality. You can’t point to one instance where that has happened. In fact, only the opposite is true.

    “Corporations pay 35% of their profit”

    Sure, in theory. The GAO and the Treasury Dept. don’t share your view, but, hey who needs facts, right?

    “Stop trying to muddy it up with imaginary scenarios of what isn’t.”

    Yeah, one could say the same to you.

    “Is it sincerely your argument that GW Bush went to war for the purposes of listening to your..ahem…interesting telephone conversations?”

    No, perhaps you should learn to read things a little more carefully. I said that the “war on terror” justified the wiretaps, not the other way around.

    “Just how is this something only I will benefit from?”

    You receive a tax cut if you make less that $250,000 per year, so showing up to idiotic tea parties (which is ironic given the fact that Boston Tea Party was itself a protest AGAINST the world’s largest corporation NOT having to pay taxes) to protest a three percent tax hike on the rich, which 99.9% of the people attending were not, is in effect, protesting something they will only benefit from.

    “I guarantee you, more government dependent people will suffer more than those strong enough to survive as Americans are”

    You seem to confuse supporting a fair tax hike with looking for a handout. Who is currently getting the handout, Steve? The rich. Your argument is cheese, as in Swiss, it’s full of holes. You make all these ridiculous accusations about looking for handouts, all the while failing to look at the very people receiving the handouts you’re bitching about. Why don’t you peruse the files in your office, that way you can better understand which tree you need to bark up if you want to stand on principles.

    “No such thing. Weak people accepted bad credit terms and high interest rates because they had bad credit and were high risks.”

    Are you stupid? Is that what’s happening? What on earth would possess you to believe that people honestly wanted to lose their homes? Why do you think that “weak” people took those loans, only to default on them? For fun? Because they like having to live in their cars? People were preyed on, you dick. Bankers and mortgage loan writers got bigger bonuses for pushing sub prime loans onto people. 40% of sub prime loans actually qualified for prime loans. Are those people stupid and weak? You have a real nasty habit of bashing the people who only wanted to do better for themselves. Instead of being an asshole, maybe you should put yourself in someone else’s shoes. It’s called empathy, and one would think that a so called “christian” would possess this virtue…

    “Pay your bills on time and this won’t be an issue”

    And when the bills unexpectedly go up? What then? When you have some slick salesman telling you that you’re getting 4% interest on your house and neglects to mention that it’s merely a teaser rate, and it jumps to 13% in two years, what then, smart guy? These contracts have been reviewed by lawyers who specialize in financial contracts, and they couldn’t figure them out, but Joe six pack should have known better? Don’t pat yourself on the back too hard, you might break your spine. Just because you didn’t get taken in doesn’t make you better than anyone else. In fact, based on your horrifying position, I’d say you’re about on par with the shit stuck to my shoe.

    “That is free market determining the worthy and the trash”

    So nice to see you viewing fellow human beings as trash. If anyone’s to be considered trash, I’d start in the mirror. This country has suffered so much damage from people like you. This is greed and selfishness run amok. When you get to the point where you’re okay with people offing themselves and sometimes their families rather than getting foreclosed on and think it’s the “free” market’s way of weeding out the “trash”, you have a serious problem and are most likely a closet sociopath. All you fucking people care about is money, and to you, people are as expendable as the napkins you fail to use when you’re done feeding at the trough. People that think like you, Steve, are a blight to society, and all I can say is thank Christ that those that share your views are the minority. It’s where you belong.

  13. This report was authorized under the Bush administration. Since when are you conservatives afraid of the truth? You guys are practically shitting yourselves over Obama. Get over it-you lost! Nobody loved Palin like the base wished. I am willing to give him some time before I turn on him.

  14. I haven’t seen a shred of evidence to show that the report was authorized under the Bush administration. Even Janet Napolitano hasn’t said so. Please back this claim up.

  15. Then I suggest Mel that you read a variety of news sources besides conservative sites. You might learn a thing or two. Try Google or Yahoo if they are not too liberal for you and make you get the vapors!

  16. I’m not talking about news sites, DavATA. Get it from the source. I do.

    And since you have no idea what news sites I DO read, I believe you can kiss my ass.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s