13 Ways to Tell If You Are Talking to an Obamaniac
October 25, 2008 by Orlando
Filed under For Your Entertainment
Obamaniacs are those glassy-eyed, Kool-aid drinking disciples of the Lord Barack Most Merciful. You may have had conversations with them and not even know it. Here are 13 tell-tale signs to know if you are talking to a devote disciple of “The One.”
- They repeatedly use words like “change” and “hope” in vapid generalities.
- They use derivatives of “spread the wealth” like “help the poor” or “care for the children.”
- They use the Bob the Builder / Lord Obama type words like “yes we can” (sometimes “yes I can”).
- The look. Say the words “Barack Obama” and they get that lingering “I’m in love” look.
- Say the words “George W. Bush” and see if their entire body language cringes. (Warning: Saying the GWB words could cause some Obamaniacs to fly into a rage. Be careful!)
- If they are African-American your chances are 94% sure without any further tests.
- They say Obama makes them FEEL special and good about themselves and the future.
- They talk how every ill in society (global warming, crime, etc.) will be better in “4 years.”
- Ask about Obama’s middle name, Hussein, and they call you racist or get defensive.
- They use many “O” words like Oprah, Obama, overcome, obey, and more.
- The Obamaniacs own sense of identity and self-worth are reflected in Obama.
- They watch most YouTube videos on Barack Obama.
- They claim taxes are patriotic.
Also see: Michelle Malkin – Obama in 2001: How to bring about “redistributive change”
![[del.icio.us]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Facebook]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Twitter]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
14. They are constantly proclaiming they are voting for candidate who has the best plan for America but can’t explain that plan, pretty much like Obama himself.
15. They call you a “racist” for not believing in the “One”.
16. They claim the main stream media is biased against Obama.
17. They are pushing on the door that says “Pull”.
18, They refused to acknowledge Barack’s middle name is Hussein.
19. They don’t have time to talk they have to get to the welfare office.
20. They claim to citizens of the world, Damn America.
21. They walk around with their hand outstretched and palms up.
22. They get tingly feelings up their legs when they say the “O” word.
23. It doesn’t bother them that the Obamamess is probably not even a natural-born citzen, and therefore ineligible to be POTUS (see #20).
24. They believe the term “socialist” is code for “black,” and therefore is racist.
25. They mock Christians for what they see as “blind” faith in a Creator they cannot see, and refer to the religious as “weak-minded” for relying on a Deity that is greater than humanity, then boldly rejoice in the coming of their Obamessiah with open worship and adoration.
First and foremost, I am a Christian. By that I am a believer in the teachings of God, through his Holy prophets (Old Testament) and Christ (New Testament). I was raised on a farm with my Grandmother/Grandfather (who was a sharecropper), went to college and received an engineering degree and now work for a top management consultant firm in the D.C. area. Through hard work and God’s favor I have made it where few others I grew up with have not.
That background information is for those who inserted items #6, #11, #19 and #25. I am a social moderate and fiscal conservative believes that sometimes for things to improve you have to try something different. With that being said can anyone provide an intelligent answer to the following question. I believe it highlights the differences between “liberals” and “conservatives”.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in first lines of the Declaration Of Independence as follows: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Article 1 of the Massachusetts Constitution rephrases the statement as follows:
“All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”
What primary role/resposibility/rights does the Federal/State government supply to its citizens? The question is left intentionally open-ended as to not lead one way or the other. I would be most interested in hearing the different takes on the issue.
Since I posed the question I will offer the first answer. I believe a primary responsibility of government is to provide for the liberty of its citizens. This implies that all citizens are to be treated equally regardless of station in society. As God stated in his Word: 1Peter 1:17 “And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work” (see alsoJames 2:1-9). Let every man be judged according to his work not his privilege or inherited station in life, but according to what he has accomplished with his life in spite of or with the help of his station in life.
Further comments welcomed.
WAYS TO TELL YOU’RE TALKING TO A McAIN/PALIN AIRHEAD:
1. Each sentence begins with, “My friend…”;
2. The Apocolypse is always just around the corner;
3. Anyone who wants government to act in a constructive manner is a “socialist”;
4. They wink a lot;
5. In place of rational argument, they mention “Joe the Plumber”;
6. They’re afraid Obama will raise their taxes … not that they pay them, anyway;
7. They’re very suspicious of science – I mean, who believes in that evolution silliness, anyway.
8. They don’t like cults of personality, unless we’re talking about Ronald Reagan;
9. They see conspiracies everywhere, in the media, in Hawaiin birth certificates, in a friend of a cousin who knew Bill Ayers;
10. They’re sure we just “turned a corner in Iraq”;
11. They miss the good old days of the cold war, when black from white was a lot easier to figure out;
12. Their idea of the ideal woman is someone who shoots animals, talks tough, and abuses power;
13. They believe racism ended when Lincoln impetuously freed the slaves, certainly before “That One” ran for President … I mean, the nerve!
14. They’re very afraid of … ho.. hom..homo.. you know, two guys together.
Thank you at least you allow someone to leave comments ,Malkins blog is only for supportetrs. There has never been a completely socialist or completely capitalist economy in the world . When you have any kind of ascending (as there is even now )tax structure there will besome degree of socialism. Obama is not bringing anything new he’s only taking away the big tax breaks the big tax break that Bush gave to make his corporate cronies happy , had nothing to do woth national welfare. ….. Even this third grade last minute idea to use the fear of socialism as a weapon had to come from Joe the plumber ……Mccain and Palin were incapable for even that…………
26. Explain their support for obama by dissolving into an incoherent hate filled rant full of words like 8 years of Bush, Republicans, Iraq, stole elections, Palin, wardrobe, McBush, McSame,
Dare to question the great one Obama and you will be investigated, called a racist, and made to pay! You will not be forgiven until you follow Messiah Obama till we are a socialist country.
26. They are literally giddy as they ride the tidal wave of electoral support into the halls of Congress & the White House!
Obama is no socialist! Like Clinton, he favors progressive taxing to adjust tax rate by tax burden, allowing a healthy middle class to survive as in the past 200 years. Income disparity promotes socialism, not progressive taxing!! HISTORY LESSON….WE HAVE BEEN USING PROGRESSIVE TAXING FOR A LONG TIME, THIS IS NOTHING NEW. BUSH PROMOTED HUGE INCOME DISPARITY & OBAMA JUST WANTS TO REVERSE THE WHAT BUSH DID TO HELP THOSE AT THE VERY TOP (like they needed the money). By the way, since when is care for the children a sign of ObamaMania??? It seems more a Christian thing…Jesus would be ashamed of you for saying such stuff!!
Adrianna, thanks for the excellent example of an Obamamaniac. (Note: Progressive Taxation = Redistribution of wealth = Socialism)
Jenn Sierra
If Progressive Taxation = Redistribution of wealth = Socialism then we have been a Socialist country for the last few decades. How would you justify Medicare or Medicaid? How do you feel about the Social Security System? All of these are examples of a Socialistic society. I am not in favor of government being too involved in an individual’s affairs, but it states in the Bible that God establishes “king, rulers and rules of law(government)”. I guess if God is OK with governement then I am too.
Again, I ask the simple question and would love for your to answer
What are the role/responsibility/rights government affords to its citizens?
The sad apart about all of this is that I am a black conservative and I find it difficult to associate with a group (conservatives) that can offer such opinions and not offer up valid alternatives to Obama’s plans. That is just as sad as “liberals” hating GWB for being GWB. I am sorry that seems so short sighted to me. If the facts show that his economic plan raises the taxes on those that earn above $250,000 ( I am not there yet, but I am working hard to get there) then is that such a bad thing. In the Bible it states: “To whom much is given much is required. To whom much more is given much more is required”. Are those that support a Christian lifestyle opposed to those words?
So Sugarbear, as a Christian you are in favor of implementing a theocracy? That’s the implication of your statement. You appear to support the government implementing biblical policy. Is that right?
That fact is, when quoting the Bible, it helps to take actual context into account (as with every other situation as well). The particular passage has nothing whatever to do with governments. It has to do with God holding people accountable for what he has given them. So you want Obama to stand in for God? Fits right in to the messiah theme.
By the way SB, you are quite right. All the examples you site ARE examples of socialism in the US government. And conservatives oppose them all on those grounds.
Government does NOT grant rights. Our founding document states, as you quote above, that our rights come from God and they are inalienable. Government is responsible to protect those rights, not grant them.
I wrote another post on the nature of rights that can found at http://forthardknox.com/2008/10/07/the-nature-of-rights/. I argue that no right can make a claim on another. So a right to housing, medical care, etc., cannot be rights because any such “right” of necessity forces someone else to provide said “right.” The rights specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights do not make specific claims against anyone. While the Declaration of Independence says you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, notice that no one is required to do anything to keep you alive or make you happy. You are responsible for that yourself.
The government is responsible only to prevent someone else from depriving you or those rights. It is NOT responsible to make sure you are able to avail yourself of life if, for example, you are sick and need a doctor. You are personally responsible for going to the doctor and paying for it. The doctor is not required by our founding documents to provide you with treatment in order that you may have the right to life.
This is such a funny thread! And Adrianna proves that one requirement to be an obamaniac is to be completely clueless about economics. Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics” should be required reading to graduate high school!
Economics 101: Don’t invest in the poor, they won’t pay you back, i.e. sub-prime loans. Obama must have missed class that day. Creating new jobs is a better option to help the poverty problem in America-duh.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say “Take from the rich and give to the poor”. The Bible states that you should help the poor. Nowhere in the Bible or Constitution say that you have to help the poor. This is a personal descision and shouldn’t be made by the G’ment for you by using Socialism. The Bible also says not to Judge others. So, that being said, by using socialism, the government is basically saying … “Because the rich aren’t choosing to give to the poor, we are going to judge them as not being nice, we are going to take their money and give it to the poor for them.” Does this sound right? Anyone? I’m not against helping the poor, but I am against anyone or government telling me that I have to do it. Also, helping the poor is getting them on their feet so that they can try to get a hold on a job or financial security. But, that doesn’t mean that we should financially secure them. If they are given the opportunity (in the form of welfare or unemployment) to help them get on their feet, then that is fine. The poor have always claimed that they never had an opportunity. If that is the case, that is ok also, but most of the poor that I personally know, was given or at one point in time, was given opportunity or had opportunity, but simply didn’t pay attention to it, or just flat out blew it do to sorryness and lazyness.
I welcome anyone to define rich.
Rich isn’t $250,000 and that isn’t even where you have your heftiest tax increase. You get a much larger tax increase at $150,000. That being said, those two top levels of tax increases was set, when, 1970, or 1980? Keep in mind that a house that costed roughly $50,000 in 1975 is worth approximately $200,000 to $250,000 today. They rich levels were never raised accordingly with time and inflation. In 1975, $250,000 is equivalent to about $1,000,000 today. If anything needed to get changed, it would need to be the levels of income you have to make before getting taxed heavier.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
If all men are created equal, then why are there higher taxes on the rich. That is holding a double standard (along with a sense of jealousy) against the rich. Obama says “They cling to the guns and religion.” If that is the case, then I say “Democrats cling to their Dreams, Envy, & Jealousy.”
It would be different if the government took the risks of starting the businesses that got the rich people rich. But they didn’t, the rich people took their own risk with their own hard earned money that had already been taxed (whether by buying a lottery ticket, or by fronting the money for a profitable business) and made smart investments. For the government to point at them and say that the rich owe more debt to society is just plain foolish. They could have went bankrupt with the investments that were made as easy as they got rich from it. But noone is willing to step up and say they took a risk. Obama thinks that starting a business and becoming wealthy is easy. That is thinking of the clueless. I own a business and work 50-60 hours a week just to keep it running and making good money. It doesn’t make good money all by itself. There is alot of hard work and hours put behind it. But the jealous doesn’t want to take that into account. If you want something, you have to work hard for it, you don’t get it by collecting a welfare check or working only 40 hours a week and clocking out.
What I think is really sad is the way the American worker looks at work today.
In the 70’s & 80’s, people were greatful and happy just to have a job. Today, employees act like they are doing their employer a favor by working for them. This is the same type of thinking that makes the poor think the rich should pay more taxes so the government can give it to them because why? They are Americans and by being an American, they have the right to have money? Nowhere in the constitution does it say that by living in the United States, you are entitled to a fair share of wealth. It plainly says the you have the right to the pursuit of happiness. If money is what make you havppy, then maybe some of you should pursue it a little harder than saying the government needs to take it from someone else and give it to you.
I laughed, I laughed and I laughed some more…now I know why they call them the lunatic fringe.
Here’s a Letter to the Editor that appeared in today’s (Monday October 27th 2008) Honolulu Star-Bulletin (page A10)…
Don’t let the GOP keep you silent
I am seriously concerned about the real voter fraud taking place right now. While the mainstream media focus our attention on Acorn and other non-issues, the real voter fraud taking place in many states across our formerly great nation, mainly swing states, is that voter registration rolls are being purged of legitimate voters, particularly young, first-time voters, African-Americans and seniors; 75 percent of these voters being removed from the roster are Democrats. For many first-time voters, showing up to vote only to be told that they can’t might just be discouraging enough to keep them from even trying next time. We are supposed to be better than this!
Why are our officials allowing this to happen? Why are more citizens not outraged by this hijacking of our democracy?
No state should have just one person (of either party!) in total control of who is allowed to vote or which votes are counted. This absolutely must be addressed, and fixed — now! Otherwise, all we’re going to get is one more fake election and another fake president.
Rhonda Sands
Haiku, Maui
http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/letters/20081027_letters_to_the_editor.html
to confirm the source or content, contact Editorial Page Editor Mary Poole, mpoole@starbulletin.com (808) 529-4748
Aloha,
Tom
P.S. http://petersontom.com/McCainPalin.html
Greetings, all. I’m J.P. and was recently charged, by my good friend Joe the Business Owner, with the task of simply attempting to refute the posting which he opined on 27th October at 20:06. After having read the posting twice, I’ve concluded that, while containing threads of factual evidence, it seems to conveniently omit other evidentiary bits that would be otherwise contradictory toward its central message, that being one of propensity toward a flat tax and advertised disregard for the well being of the less fortunate. It is also far more heavy on conservative ideology and talking points than it is on historical evidence and persuasive facts. Could that be due to the resounding lack thereof? Let’s explore, shall we…
The initial point is half true. The verbiage “Take from the rich and give to the poor” is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. However, the King James Version of the Bible does contain multiple references toward proper conduct in dealing with the poor, and I’ve listed three examples of such below:
“If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.” (Deuteronomy 15:7)
“There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.” (Deuteronomy 15:11)
“‘All these I have kept,’ the young man said. ‘What do I still lack?’ Jesus answered, ‘If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in Heaven. Then come, follow me.’ When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.” (Matthew 19:20-22)
The aforementioned Biblical passages are, in no conceivable application, indicative of any presumption or attempt on my part to impose any inclinations of guilt or duty to Joe the Plumber, I mean Business Owner. They’re simply in response to his claim that any call to duty regarding the poor is absent from Biblical verse. Joe, you’re right when you contend that there’s no concrete, legal mandate for giving a damn about the poor, but the verses speak for themselves.
In re the rant regarding a presumptious judgment on the part of the government that the wealthy, by refusing to willfully give to the poor, are being judged “…as not being nice…”, there obviously exists no evidence for this bit of conspiracy theory anywhere in the annals of government documentation, much less the Constitution. Therefore this opinion is just that, an unfounded opinion. It is but the way that Joe apparently views all social welfare programs in this country. His opinion, however uninformed, remains, by definition, an abstract belief and thus not a fact that would otherwise be subject to refute. Therefore I cannot attempt to refute this opinion because it is just that. If Joe were to state that he simply believes puppies are good, I would likewise be unable to factually argue that synopsis. Although I wholeheartedly disagree, by the definitions of fact and opinion, no one is able to rationally refute a belief.
However, the stereotypical belief that poor people choose to remain poor due to their sorriness and lazyness is simply irresponsible and irrational. Granted that there will always be outlying subjects who collectively serve as a pristine example of any stereotypical theory, the same stereotypical theories completely discount those residing on the opposite end of the comparative spectrum, thus conveniently excluding those who inherantly refute their bias. Would you, Joe, say that there are, for the purpose of YOUR argument, extremely hard working people who perpetually live in poverty, not because of purposeful laziness and sorriness, but because they were never privy to the same educational, occupational, transportation or financial opportunities as others? If you disagree with the previous statement you inherantly disagree with the principle your own assessment. You cannot rationally argue that the poor people that you personally know are poor via their own accord without acknowledging that their polar opposites exist on the very same rung of the proverbial ladder. I would also suggest that you, having soundly voiced your staunch opposition to the sorry, lazy and socially parasitic poor of America, would not choose to associate with these people for a cup of coffee, much less long enough to successfully diagnose their respective financial situations and then compare them to their correlating levels of sorriness and laziness. That simply doesn’t make sense to me, but I guess you could choose to hang out with people that you apparently despise.
In re a welcome to provide concrete definition of “rich”, I am most excited to address this, the next fallacy of Joe. As stated in your opinion, an individual earning $250,000.00 per year is not “rich”. That is your opinion. The fact of the matter is that my definition of what income constitutes “rich” will differ from yours, and yours will differ from person A, and person A’s opinion will differ from person B’s and so on. Regardless of anyone’s definition of “rich”, the current IRS tax brackets refute your claim that an annual income of $150,000.00 brings the most substantial tax increase. (For the purpose of this argument I chose the Head of Household allocations.) According to the 2008 income tax brackets, a Head of Household earning between $43,651.00 and $112,650.00 paid a rate of 25%. At the point that the same earner increased their income to $112,651.00 they’d be bumped up 3% to 28%, and that rate applies until they make $182,400.00. At the point that the earner increased their income to $182,401.00 they’d then be taxed at a rate 33%, and that rate would apply up to an annual income of $357,700.00. This means that the biggest 2008 tax increase, that being 5%, comes at the $182,401.00 income level, not at $150,000.00. In terms of actual money, that’s a big difference from your claim. Also I find it most interesting to note that the SMALLEST percentage of tax rate increase in 2008, that being 2%, comes at the point when someone earns $357,701.00+. At that point the earner’s income would increase from 33% to 35%. It’s also most interesting to note that this threshhold is the final bracket, and the 35% rate applies to someone who annually earns $357,701.00 or $5 million or $1 billion. Lest we forget that, under the Reagan administration, these same tax rates were 70%. Also, in terms of raw percentage increase, those earning $43,650 would pay 15%, but when their income went to $43,651.00 their rate would be 25%, a full 10% increase.
In re your claim that the current tax brackets and rates were set “…when, 1970 or 1980?…”, I have to inform you that you’re drastically incorrect on that as well. The IRS tax brackets and rates are adjusted annually, and the 2009 IRS brackets and rates will starkly differ from those imposed in 2008. The aforementioned tax increase from 28% to 33%, that occured at $182,401.00 in 2008, will be assessed at $190,201.00 in 2009. Also the highest rate of 35%, thanks to the now infamous Bush administration tax cuts, will come at $372,951.00 in 2009. Aside from the fact that neither your or my definition of “rich” matter to the IRS in terms of tax rates, you were wrong in saying that “…rich levels were never raised accordingly with time and inflation.” These rates are adjusted every single year.
That pesky truth seems to always get in the way of your “logic”, eh?
In re your completely asinine argument that men are unequal because their tax rates differ, I cringe when I think that you actually believe that this bit of rambling is germaine to any rational discussion. If the Constitution prescribes that all men are created equal, then why do all men not: qualify for financial aid in the state funded university system? qualify for credit at car dealerships or mortgage banks? qualify for governmental agricultural subsidies? qualify for government cheese? get balloons on our birthdays? fly kites? kick rocks? manage exotic dancers? The greatness of America lies in our common strength, derived from a collection of differences in ideas and culture that contribute to a single, American cause. America attained dominance militarily, economically and influentially directly as a result of the differences of its parts and the corresponding greatness of it whole. Oh yeah…if I were an otherwise unskilled laborer who lived in Pennsylvania and lost my manufacturing job, had absolutely no idea why my job was sent abroad and had no immediate job opportunities and no immediate idea of how I was going to support my family, I’d pray too. I’d cling viciously to prayer. Would you not pray in that instance? This does not represent a notion of “…Dreams, Envy, & Jealousy” on the part of Sen. Obama, but an accurate assessment of the reaction by Pennsylvania manufacturing workers to the loss of their jobs because of corporate outsourcing due to the Bush administration’s failure to provide any incentive for companies to keep American jobs in America. W. also failed to punish companies who sent American jobs abroad by continuing their massive tax cuts, which he instituted. Is financially rewarding companies for their dissolution of American jobs just? Me thinks not. The truth, once again, refutes your partisan ranting.
In re your assessment that financial success requires hard work and dedication, I concur. Financial success, or the “American Dream”, is not owed to anyone. The pursuit of this stability definitely requires diligence and old fashioned sweat, but that does not go to say that people who are “…working only 40 hours a week and clocking out…” aren’t contributing to America. America simply cannot function without people who are willing to perform the unfashionable but necessary jobs. Not everyone in America can be expected to be a successful business owner. If you contend that everyone should follow your model and pursue your objectives, then who would make the food? Who would collect the trash? Who would clean the floors? Who would teach our children? Who would make the clothes? Who would build the cars? Who would manage the exotic dancers?
In re your argument that people aren’t grateful for having a job today, I can direct all attention to your previous contention. If manufacturers in Pennsylvania weren’t grateful for their employment, why would they then “cling” to prayer? Granted that the vast majority of Pennsylvania manufacturing workers aren’t welfare recipients, I’d venture to say that they appreciate their jobs just as much as they did in the 1970’s and 1980’s. That argument is entirely unfounded. Also, if money is what makes you happy then pursue it. If snorkeling makes you happy, pursue it. If bird watching makes you happy, pursue it. However, if money is what makes one happy, my opinion is that you’re a horribly shallow person.
In conclusion, if you contends that the government’s intention is to pursue a “Robin Hood” policy via redistribution of funds, a hallmark of the socialist model of government, simply to placate those who choose to be lazy and dependent, then Joe, you represent a skewed take on it all. Also, if you assert that taxation is, by definition, redistribution of wealth, then you are opposed to taxation. If you are opposed to taxation, then you are, by definition, an anarchist. It is my sincere hope that you’re not of this opinion.
Finally I’d like to leave everyone with the tidbit viewed via the link below. It is not in response to anything my friend Joe has contended, but I think that everyone, no matter their political platform, should view this interview. Its prophecy is exceeded only by its irony. I would say enjoy, but that’s not possible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnV4tMvI0ME
Oh, the Bible is in place for the Democrats, but when Republicans speak of religion publicly, they get beaten up over it. But I’ll let you by at least a little on that one.
I never said that I “don’t give a damn about the poor”. The purpose behind which we sometimes take care of the poor need heavy reform. Behind Barack Obama’s proposed plan, his only solution is to take money from someone else and give it to them.
Don’t think this would cause a problem? Think again!!!
What would be the purpose of trying to work hard from the bottom and work your way up, if the you can make more money by being poor. The plan Obama proposes will give more money to the poor for doing absolutely nothing, then someone would start making at a minimum wage job. From that aspect, what is someone’s incentive to work and do good if they don’t see an easy way up the ladder? You think the Iraq war is costing us, just wait until a plan like this is passed. Everyone working a minimum wage job will be better off to quit if they don’t see a way to move up. Therefor, costed the government unimaginable amounts of money. You think that the rich can foot the bill alone for that? It’s impossible. This Ronald Reagan’s trickle down theory in reverse. Essentially, the tax increases would start with the top 5% of the wealthiest, then as more and more people keep NOT working, the tax increases will trickle on down to the middle class. We cannot afford programs like this, along with the other Trillions of dollars in new spending that Obama is proposing.
I’m sorry, I don’t have a mother that is a CPA like you. Maybe my numbers weren’t completely correct, but the $250,000 mark is where Obama is putting the number (3 weeks ago), last week Joe Biden said $200,000, then 2 days ago Joe Biden then said $150,000. I think he’s realizing that the new spending isn’t only going to be covered by the so-called top 5%. But one fact remains, there is an additional 10% at the top leveled compared to middle class. Most (Un-informed) Americans do not realize that if the you are self-employed, then there is another 6% self-employment tax added to the top of that 35% for a total of 41%. Everyone, take a look at you paycheck stub. See how much was taken out for social security? Your employer has to match that when the pay it to the government. (eg. If $40 was taken out for Social Security, then your employer had to pay a total of $80 to the government). Just take half, hell, what’s the difference. That is what J.P. thinks. You want to hurt the employees of these businesses, then just raise the taxes, it will reflect in your paycheck, along with everyone else’s paycheck. The richest of the rich, do not have to work anymore, and really don’t care if you, I, or any other American have a Job. If they get fed up with taxes, one of two different things could happen.
1. They will say “screw it” and shut there business down, therefor, creating more massive unemployment. They don’t have to work just because their employees expect the employer to give them a job tomorrow. (Kinda would reflect back on the way the American worker looks at their jobs today versus 1970’s) Note: Unions are America’s worst enemy. I’ll explain that later.
2. Do you think just because the G’ment wants more money, that they will be willing to make less? Yeah, right!!! In the end, the tax increase will find itself levying down to the employee, just not in the form of tax. The employer will cut insurance, matching on 401K’s, and many other well known benefits that come with full time jobs.
The answer to our federal deficit isn’t to put an extra tax burden on people that create jobs. The answer is to do anything necessary to create jobs, and in essence, people will start spending again.
Recap:
What happens when jobs are created?
More people have jobs, therefor, more people are paying taxes.
What happens when people start spending?
Money moves from one place to another and is taxed again.
This will create extra tax revenue.
If taxes are raised on employers, then everything slows down, Essentially, causing less taxes to be taken in by the federal government due to no money moving. Money has to move to be taxed.
Why should it cost more percentage of a paycheck for one person to live in the United States than another?
They aren’t using more roads than any other American, and if they are, they are making up the difference in gas tax. And if they own a Cox trucking, they are making up the difference in extra taxes on heavy trucks.
They use less government resources, but yet have to pay more taxes out of their paychecks. This doesn’t strike you as being treated differently, aka not EQUAL?
By the way, if you are a Hillary supporter, you shouldn’t want Barack Obama to win. Hillary has already said that she is running again when it rolls back around. If Obama wins, she won’t have a chance to run in 4 years because Obama will automatically have the Democratic nomination to re-run. If Obama loses, Hillary will have another shot in 2012. I can live with Hillary, but I am scared shitless of Obama’s policies.
You don’t have to thank George W Bush Jr for sending our jobs abroad, you and greatfully thank Bill Clinton for signing NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) that sent American jobs abroad in the first place. Wait, isn’t this the man that you think is the greatest president ever? Then your gonna give W all of the credit for jobs going abroad, when he isn’t the one that allowed it to happen in the first place.
You said that a flat tax would be absolutely insane. Flat tax isn’t insane. Even with a flat tax, you would be able to say that if you make under $8000 you will not have to pay any taxes. But if you are paying a flat tax, then someone who is making $1,000,000 versus $50,000 will already be paying more money. Why would it be necessary for them to have a percentage increase. For instance, the rich guy at a 25% tax rate will be paying $250,000 in taxes while the guy making $50,000 will be paying $12,500 in taxes. Why does the guy making $1,000,000 owe any more money than that. He’s already paying more for living here, why is it necessary to for them to have a different tax bracket. In essence, that kind of all takes care of itself due to they are paying only on what they made, not what bracket they are in. To me, that is equality. A man not taking any government benefit is already paying an extra debt, why should he have to pay more percentage. I’m not saying to tax the middle class more. And I’m not saying to tax the poor at all. But the idea of just taking money from someone that pays taxes to give to someone that doesn’t pay any taxes at all with very little regulation like it is and Obama’s proposals will actually be loser about handing benefits out to the poor, when so many people are cheating the system as it is, just doesn’t make sense. Like I said, I’m not against helping the poor, but I don’t see giving them more and more so that they don’t have any incentive to look for or hold a job.
Enough about that, until you again rant on about how everyone should be nice and patriotic by willingly handing over their hard earned money to the government, just because they can afford it.
I said that I would discuss and explain why the Union is America’s worst enemy.
Everyone thinks this economic crisis, housing market, and cost of fuel is the ultimate cause for the downfall of Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc. Truth is, the union had as much cause to that effect, or more, as any of the other causes mentioned above. Don’t get me wrong, and this all goes back to me saying that the American worker was different in the 70’s versus now, the union was a good thing in the 70’s.
The main reason for the union was to make sure that corporations and factories treated the employees fair and hold the employer honest on any unjust acts. The problem with Union is that it gave the employee too many powers to get what they wanted, although, the majority of them have never ran or owned a business. Therefor, causing employers now to give them more and more, when the companies are doing less and less.
Keep in mind when I say the following that I have 5 Uncles & 8 first cousins that work at Ford that are all for a Union.
Here’s why?
A Union:
Pros:
1. Keeps employers honest
2. Can’t fire an employee for unjust reasoning
Cons: Here we go
1. Employer can’t lay off one employee if he/she isn’t needed. They have to lay off an entire shift if a layoff happens, or Union will strike.
2. Gives Employees too much power.
3. Now that Minimum wage is in effect, there is no use in a Union when it comes to money.
4. Makes the Employer unable to fire someone for just reasons if the Union says that they can’t.
It may not look like a whole lot of cons, but I will let you know why the cons out weight the pros in substance.
Even if an employee is not needed, employer’s are required to keep them employed unless they can lay off an entire shift. Therefor, costing the company more money than is needed to complete the jobs at hand. Which causes them to have to raise prices on their product.
The Union sets how long it should take to do a particular job, I personally know someone that worked at Ford that got chewed out for doing to much by a Union representative. The reasoning behind the Union representative was that the employee was going to fast and was going to get a job done faster than the Union projected, therefor causing someone to lose their job.
When the Union decides they want a raise, all they have to do is threaten strike, then they get one because everyone knows that a place like Ford cannot run without employees. Employees have all of the leverage.
If an employer fires someone for actually doing something wrong, if the Union declares that they don’t want the employee fired, then the employer has no choice but to keep them.
Now, I’m going to break down Ford.
Approx. 10 years ago Ford employees went on strike because they weren’t going to make enough to satisfy them, although the majority of Ford employees were making between $25 to $30 an hour at that time.
This in essence caused Ford to keep raising their prices on their vehicles. Everyone knows how expensive they had gotten.
When Ford started slowing down after 9/11 Ford started laying off entire shifts for 2 week periods. While these employees are laid off, they draw the maximum in unemployment insurance, which is roughly $400. Keep in mind that the average Ford employee is used to a $800 to $1000 a week paycheck. The Union contract with Ford requires Ford to pay all laid off employees the difference up to 90% of what they make when they are working. Costing Ford Billions. Still costing Ford billions. Then they started offering employees a buyout package to buy them out of their Union contract. For instance, one of my cousins got paid $100,000 to walk away from Ford after only being there 4 years. Rediculous? I think so. They only had to do this because of the Union. They actually had to pay their employees to quit, rather than being able to just lay them off due to not needing them anymore. This created a huge burden on Ford.
GM is already asking for a bailout from the government, and I’m predicting it won’t be long before Ford has to also. But, it irritates me how everyone blames the war on what is going on with Ford, GM, etc. The biggest problems they had was their unions. They caused them to pay unjust money to unneeded employees just because they have the right to work there.
This makes my argument for the way employees think today versus what employees thought in the 70’s. They act like they are doing you a favor for working for you, rather than being greatful to their employer for giving them a job. No employer has to employ you or keep you employed, and just because you think you can’t be replaced at a job, doesn’t mean that you are entitled to keep that job no matter the circumstances. Why should the employee be able to cost the employer more money just because they think they are worth it, regardless of whether the employer thinks they are worth it? Alot of people wonder why some farmers only hire immigrants. This is because, they seem to be the only ones willing to do real work and don’t complain when it’s something that they don’t want to do. It’s not because they are cheaper, it’s because American worker’s aren’t like they used to be, they demand more and do less, or at least 75% are that way. We are all getting lazy to some extent, and noone wants to do the hard working and sweaty labor anymore. Everyone thinks they should be able to start out at the easiest job for the most money without working their way up. This falls back to the reasoning for my beliefs in Obama’s policies will cause the poor to not want to work as they can make more money from government benefits.
That was a lot of typing to make just a couple of points, but for some people (J.P.) you just have to spell it out for them or they will beat their way around the bush to make some people (Me) say more than they really want to say to make a political point, but sometimes things need to be said, although, possibly offending other people, for anything to be corrected on issues. Someone in a political seat couldn’t say half of what I said there or they would be lose an election for sure. But, sometimes, we Americans are our own worst enemies because some people (J.P.) just don’t know how to open their eyes to the truths and sometimes just don’t want to hear the truth.
Let me know what you think (I welcome all to comment). I will respond… Guaranteed.
By the way, as J.P. stated in his previous message that I accused that someone that only works 40 hours a week and clocking out doesn’t contribute to America is simply untrue. That is not what I was saying and completely taken out of context. I was making a point that if you are pursueing happiness and money is what makes you happy, then working 40 hours a week and clocking out doesn’t get you there and you should go as far as to say that you would like the government to take more money from this guy so that you could have it to help get you there. The main point made was that it takes alot of hard work to make yourself wealthy, and it just doesn’t fall from the sky (Unless Obama is President). If everyone was wealthy for just working 40 hours a week and clocking out, then there would be no point in creating trade and business if there is no need to have all of those long hours and headaches to go with it to become wealthy. You have the right to the Pursuit of Happiness, which should not be taken out of context to say the the Government should pursue happiness for you. Saying that the government should give you money on that basis, is the same as me saying that sex makes me happy, I want the government to take the women away from the guys that have so many of them and give them to me. It just doesn’t work that way and shouldn’t for good reason. What ever happened to the pride of the American people and saying they earned everything they had. And no, saying that you are American doesn’t earn your money for you (Unless Obama is President).
While these last two novels that you two idiots wrote were entertaining(Joe the Business Owner, and JP), they can both be debunked by a true non-partisan like myself. Na just kidding, but i will try to look past talking points as much as i can .
On the first point of his argument “Joe” the business owner states that nowhere in the constitution does it say that the rich should have to take of the poor. In this statement Joe is completely correct, but it is a little misleading. Fundamentally I think most people would agree with Joe that no person should have there own hard earned wealth taken from them and redistributed to those with less money . These are principles of socialism and communism neither of which is applicable to Barack Obama. Please allow me to explain
You get into the subject of what is considered “poor”. Their will always be people in our society that are less fortunate than others no matter how much of a tax cut they receive, for reasons of their own choosing, or because of numerous factors that are beyond there control. Barack Obama and most democrats believe that the majority of people who are “poor” are not by choice and deserve a tax cut. Obama believes that the american dream has diminished because hardworking americans at the bottom of the payscale are having a much harder time putting food on there family’s table.
Obama’s tax plan is NOT socialism. He is being made out to be a socialist for wanting to repeal W’s tax cut to levels the same as they were under the great William Jefferson Clinton? How does this make any sense? While republicans had lots of reasons to dislike Bill Clinton I do not believe any prominent republican ever called him a socialist. Are they calling him a socialist then because he plans on giving bottom 90% of people tax cuts even though bottom 40% don’t even pay income taxes. If these people already don’t pay in any income tax why should they receive an extra 400$ on there income tax refunds? Why should the bottom 40%, some of which don’t even work get a free handout? This is a perfectly legitimate argument. But is just another example of a republican talking point that on the surface looks to be just, but with a little insight is completely absurd. First of all Obama’s tax plan only gives tax cuts to working americans not one’s that are already living off of welfare or other government subsidies. Second and finally on Obama’s tax plan, while it is true that a percentage of people receiving Obama tax cuts don’t pay income taxes there are plenty of other taxes americans face every day. I do not need to list any of these other taxes because i am sure you, as a business owner, are perfectly aware of the plethora of taxes levied against a normal american. Obama’s idea is to give even the bottom of wage earners relief on the taxes they pay there govt thoughout the year.
This is what Obama has coined as “From the bottom up economics.” Instead of giving tax cuts to the top 5% of earners and hoping that the money trickles down over the other 95%. To there credit trickle down economics, started by Ronald Reagan in the 1980’s, at times has helped our economy grow exponentially but at what expense? While it is fundamentally true that you don’t want to raise taxes so high as to scare business from investing within the united states and creating jobs, you also have to realize that the W tax cuts contributed to biggest discrepancy in wealth ever between the top 25% and the bottom 25%.
Did you know for instance that the top 25% were in control of 87% of this countries wealth and the bottom 25% dont even have statiscally have .1% of overall wealth. That number is staggering to me and hits the main point of my argument. While i do understand your point of not wanting people who have worked hard for their money to have it stripped from them i also believe that the bush tax cuts were a big giveaway to top wealth owners and should be rescinded. After 8 years of favoring big business and contributing to this massive disparity in wealth it is time for the little guy to get a bigger piece.
And finally i dont think these tax cuts will hurt small businesses like yourself as much as you believe. While it is true you will be paying a higher tax rate, it is of my understanding and the belief of democrats that you well recoop these losses by the 90% of americans receiving a tax cut to spend there extra money on products and services offered by small businesses like your own.
sorry jodie dont mean to team up on you but i figured you’d have plenty of help rebutting mine and jp’s responses by all the repubs on this site. I couldnt get to all the topics because i blabbered way too long on this one.
“Small businesses will get their money back by the bottom 90% spending the tax cuts that Obama’s plan gives them.”
Although the above is partly true, I have an argument to part of that. You even said yourself “Products and Services.” This being said, I believe I need to remind you that all small businesses aren’t retail. Therefor, making all small business owners that provide a service instead of a product work harder to get their money back that Obama is taking away. I hate to be repetitive on this as many Republicans. Take, Joe the Plumber for instance, a plumber doesn’t sell a product. He sells his services that can be offered. Therefor, making him have to take on at least 15% more work (labor) to recoupe the money that Obama’s plan is taking away from him. That makes me sick. This is a hard working guy trying to make himself better off, and all Obama’s plan will do is set him back a year or two from what he has accomplished or was planning to be accomplishing now.
One thing is for sure, there will be no benefit to someone wanting to start a new business in the future if Obama is elected. As they are trying to climb the ladder, they are going to hit hard tax burdens along the way. With the tax increases, it would be hard for me to believe that at some point, they wouldn’t give up and settle for less due to at too many different points along the way you hit areas of tax increases.
Let me put together an example for you as it seems that I have to spell it out.
Also, I’m using $250,000 in this example as this is what notoriously keeps coming out of Obama’s mouth, or should it be $200,000 as Joe Biden said a week ago, or should it be $150,000 as Joe Biden said a couple of days ago?
Oh well, for arguments sake, I’m going to use $250,000
I’m assuming that under Barack Obama’s plan, there will be a 5% increase at $250,000 of earned income from 33% to 38%.
If a small business owner makes $249,900 by November of any year. 33%($82,467) will go to the government at that point. After adding 6% self-employment tax to the top of that and that number becomes a staggering $97,461. And if the same small business owner decided to work the rest of the year and just say that business wasn’t all that good for the last two months. Let’s just say that he wound up making $255,000 in gross profit. 38% ($96,900) will go to the government. Then add the 6% self-employment tax to that and that number becomes an overwhelming $112,200 (44% in all)
$249,900 – $97,461 = $152,439 after taxes
$255,000 – $112,200 = $142,800 after taxes
It’s pretty bad when the way the tax system is set up can actually cost someone money for trying hard. As Joe Biden would say “That person is patriotic for paying more taxes.”
This business owner actually costed himself money by working the rest of the year. He would have been better off to sit at home for the last two months of the year. By working and making an extra $5000, he actually costed himself (or should I say that Obama costed him) $10,000 in the end. So, what incentive does Obama’s plan give small businesses to do better when they take a chance at not doing any better for themselves by trying to improve their income? And please, don’t say that it is patriotic for them to do so.
Based on Obama’s plan, everyone would be better off to quit their job and just sit at home and let the government support them. Him plan gives no incentive to the American to want to work. Why would they? Because they want to be patriotic? Yeah, OK …… I want to bash any Democrat that uses the patriotic term when it comes to taxes when they won’t support our troops and act like their work in Iraq is worthless. That should make our soldiers feel good. The way the Democrats talk today about the war in Iraq, they might as well spit in the soldiers faces when they come home like what happened when our troops came back from the Vietnam war.
I don’t expect everyone to jump up and down over George W Bush and what he has done, but I do expect everyone to respect our troops for what they are doing.
Everyone asks why we even went to Iraq when Bin Laden is the one that caused 9/11 …. I have one question, why did we go to Germany during World War II when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor?
We went there because Hitler was committing hanus sins and we didn’t like it. That could be reasoning of why we went to Iraq. Hussein killed everyone of their troops that laid their guns down to us in Desert Storm. There was mass graves found over their. But CNN (Clinton News Network), MSNBC, etc all failed to report much on that because they were too caught up into Bush and setting up the election for John Kerry in 04 and Obama now in 08. Noone finds something wrong when Hussein’s sons would ride down the street and pick a woman to take home, rape, torture, then feed them to their pet lions. If you want to talk about the poor and helpless in our economy, I didn’t know that the Bible was only good for Americans. But, all of the Democrats repeatly say it was worthless to go into Iraq. You want to call me uncivilized, I can make arguments against the Democratic side also on being civilized.
We spend alot more money on other wasteful government spending than the Iraq war is costing us. The media just makes it sound like so much money being spent on Iraq by throwing up the word Billions. We spend more money on illegal aliens in a year than the Iraq war costs us. I’m not saying that the spending on illegal aliens is worthless, but it’s just making a point from an e-mail from “the rational one.”
I ask everyone if it is just me or is LA Times holding the Obama video for the reason that would probably cost Obama the election. I think so. JP and Z, you can’t argue me on that one. Why else would they keep from releasing it. Are they scared that Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannitty would get ahold of it? LOL … It’s OK if you decide that your candidate isn’t the best choice, noone, here, will complain.
Joe i appreciate the argument but there are some huge holes found within your points.
First of all how the hell does it make sense that you are better off sitting at home and not working under obama’s tax plan. Its not like obama has proposed to expand the welfare program. If I remember correctly Bill Clinton a democrat was the one responsible for cutting our welfare program in half, not all the previous republican administrations that preceded him. Obama is NOT planning on creating social welfare systems, that is absolutely ridiculous. Hiking the taxes on people making more than 250,000 and giving a tax cut to everyone else is NOT a giveaway of your tax dollars. The tax rates on the so-called rich are currently the lowest they have been in 30 years or so. You make it sound like democrats have something against people that do well.
Its not about punishing Joe the Business Owner for doing well its about paying for our massive government. If republicans are so gung ho about everybody having lower taxes why dont they propose a way to cut our spending. Now every election cycle I’ve got to listen to your ridiculous republican talking points about democrats are tax and spenders and republicans are “fiscal conservatives”. This is one of the biggest lies ever in modern political history.
Let’s start with your hero Ronald Reagan. When Reagan came into office there were really high taxes on corporate america. He decided that this was unfair and gave them huge tax cuts. So with the lost tax revenue you would think that he would have to downsize government. Oh no no no, in actuality he actually grew spending by 2.33%. Before Reagan came into office the debt was 700 billion when he left it was 3 trillion. Let me tell you thats some real fiscal conservatism.
Now in Reagan’s defense most of that money was spent on our military and was mainly responsible for ending the cold war. Were his spending increases necessary? Yes they were but Reagan decided to spend more money but give tax breaks and take in less. Lets use our brains and think a little here if i only make 100$ a week can I just continually spend 200$ a week. No i have to make more money or stop spending so much.
Okay fast forward a couple of years to a democratic president, a tax and spender, Bill Clinton. He did the horrible thing of raising taxes on the top percentages of wage earners. Oh man this caused so many people to just stay home because they were taxed so much. Hahaha. Under clinton spending went up a measly .81%. Hmmm, how does this make sense? A democrat, a so called tax spender, grew government less than any other recent republican president. Also because of his raise in taxes and tiny growth in government he actually paid down our national debt and left the next president with budget surpluses.
Now lets talk about your hero George W. Bush who again ran a campaign on lower taxes and smaller government. To his credit W took clinton’s budget surpluses and rewarded the top percentage with tax cuts. Now this isn’t a bad idea until you couple it with the fact that he grew government spending by 3.23% the largest growth in spending since Lyndon Johnson.
So here is a little recap
Ronald Reagan- Spending + 2.33% National Debt + 429%
Bill Clinton- Spending + 0.81% National Debt +33%
George W. Bush- Spending + 3.23% National Debt +82% and counting
Now you explain to me how republicans continuously get away with calling democrats tax and spenders. Democrats need to coin a term for republicans like spenders of money we don’t have. Someone has to pay for government its a fact of life. Now if you don’t want your taxes to be raised i’d like to hear how you and your party plan on cutting spending. Don’t even dare to say we are going to grow our way out of it because that is again just ludicrous. We have been trying that for almost 30 years and it hasnt happened yet. Now I do like John Mccains proposal of getting rid of pork barrel spending but lets be realistic if he cut every pork barrel project he could save 18 billion dollars. Thats not even a blip on the screen of our budget deficit. For comparison purposes we spend almost a trillion dollars a year on our military and the wars we are waging over seas. This is by far the largest expense in our government.
Now i listen to you complain over and over again about obama wanting to raise your taxes but every time i talk to you, you bring up how great of an idea Iraq was, and that we should go ahead and take out Iran. How will we pay for all of this? Should we just keep borrowing money from other nations to support us and our military power? 400 billion dollars of taxes that we paid went to pay interest on our debt to other nations just this year alone. Not a single dollar was paid back just interest on the debt. Fiscal conservatism at its best. Pay no attention to how much money your spending just keep giving people more tax breaks and spend all you want.
Now in closing I think I’ve proven adequately that somethings got to change and I am very anxious to learn your solution. Oh yeah thats right solutions dont matter as long as your taxes are low.
In regards to this Rashid Khalidi video. To thiink that the LA times is behind some conspiracy to help obama is completely naive. The reporter that was given the tape like 6 months ago was given so and instructed not by his source not to release the tape. As condition of the reporter getting to review the tape he had agree to not release it to the public. this happens all the time within the media, you have to make deals to get information from secret sources.
And even if they did release it what do you think they are gonna find? Do you honestly believe that obama is a terrorist or an anti-semite? Just ridiculous jodie.
Oh Ann Coulter, I mean Joe, you whimsical mascot… Your numbers refute themselves. Your opinions are the only base for your ranting, and your historical parallels are so ignorant of even a 5th grade social studies curriculum that I worry for your very well being.
Firstly, as you claimed earlier, my mother’s occupation has exactly zero to do with the information which I presented. I found said data via the IRS’s OFFICIAL releases. Is that unreliable internet data? Does that have one iota of relativity to a CPA? Your fervent ignorance of facts is troubling, but that seems to be what you’ve accused me of, no? “…(J.P.) just don’t know how to open their eyes to the truths and sometimes just don’t want to hear the truth.” Is this not exactly what YOU YOURSELF are obviously doing? Puzzling… I believe the accepted historical verbiage, relative to this practice, is “talking out of both sides of one’s mouth”.
Secondly, I couldn’t help but notice that you sited WWII as historical precedent for the U.S. involvement in Iraq, relative to the argument that Iraq wasn’t directly involved in 9/11.
“Everyone asks why we even went to Iraq when Bin Laden is the one that caused 9/11 ….I have one question, why did we go to Germany during World War II when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor?”
Simple history teaches us that Hitler’s Germany, Hirihito’s Japan, and Mussolini’s Italy constituted the Axis powers. The Axis powers were official, wartime enemies of the Allied powers, which the U.S. would eventually lead. America had to be at war collectively with the Axis powers, not just Japan. WWII did not provide for a cafeteria of foes. The U.S. could not pick and choose which of the Axis powers with which it warred, as those states were military allies and thus warred for their collective objective. Unbelieveable… Granted that the U.S. did not enter militarily until immediately following 7th December 1941, it is widely known that the U.S. provided Great Britain with logistical and material support during the entire war period before its actual military involvement. Oh…I forgot that, by your previously stated logic, should Roosevelt be faulted for attempting to keep the U.S. OUT OF WAR AND NOT SENDING AMERICAN TROOPS TO CONFLICT, and only asking for a congressional declaration AFTER there was clearly no choice? I am initially outraged, but when I recount that this argument is being made by someone who, not a week ago, stated that he was a staunch advocate for a unilateral war with Iran, I realize from whence this bit of mess came. Your views, and the views of those with whom you are collaborating, are terribly troubling.
Thirdly, I am compelled to skip ahead to Fox News bastion that is the Rashid Khalidi story. It is true that the Los Angeles Times has apparently refused to release a video segment that could possibly show Sen. Obama sitting at the same table of this former spokesman for the PLO. Does guilt by association exist? Is association inherantly indicative of agreement? I personally know Ann Coulter, I mean Joe the Business Owner, and it is pristinely clear that he and I don’t agree on most policy matters. Aside from the fact that this Khalidi guy was born in New York, educated at Oxford and Yale, and is now a professor at Columbia University, it seems as though Sen. McCain wasn’t exactly a critic of Khalidi’s work, as cited by Juan Cole, the president of the Global Americana Institute, in the excerpt below:
“Ironically, as the Huffington Post showed, while John McCain was chairing the International Republican Institute, he gave over $400,000 to Rashid Khalidi’s Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank.”
Hmmmmm…what’s the word I’m looking for here…maybe the Merriam-Webster dictionary can be of some assistance…
hypocrisy
Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Pronunciation: \hi-ˈpä-krə-sē also hī-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poc·ri·sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide — more at certain
Date: 13th century
1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not ; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2: an act or instance of hypocrisy
Yeah, that’ll do.
Next is, in my opinion, the most critical and terrible assumption that Joe makes. I’ll begin by using his very words to better illustrate his level of partisan assumption and unfortunate imagery:
“I want to bash any Democrat that uses the patriotic term when it comes to taxes when they won’t support our troops and act like their work in Iraq is worthless. That should make our soldiers feel good. The way the Democrats talk today about the war in Iraq, they might as well spit in the soldiers faces when they come home like what happened when our troops came back from the Vietnam war.
I don’t expect everyone to jump up and down over George W Bush and what he has done, but I do expect everyone to respect our troops for what they are doing.”
In stating the above mess, you are apparently making an attempt, albeit a ridiculous one, to collectively demonize the Democratic party by claiming that ANY opposition to the debacle that has become the Iraq war is a direct insult to the brave soldiers who are presently fighting it. Granted that the Hussein regime was a brutal, barbaric totalitarian dictatorship, I see other examples throughtout history and in present day societies across the globe. North Koreans are literally starving to death in the streets while Kim Jong Il pays approximately $700,000.00 per year to the French spirits giant Jas. Hennessy & Co. for cognac. Sudanese muslims are committing acknowledged genocide against black Sudanese refugees in Darfur. Is America inherantly responsible for righting the wrongs of these scoundrels? If so, we should invade and conquer North Korea and Sudan. America has far too many domestic problems, such as our CRUMBLED education system, infrastructure fallicies (i.e. collapse of the I-35W bridge into the Mississippi river in Minneapolis just last year), umpteen millions of children and elders without health care, financial chaos, perpetually growing government deficit, the nearly complete lack of ideas and efforts toward alternative energy sources, and the beat goes on and on. The $10 billion per month cost of sustained occupation of Iraq would be, in my humble opinoin, MUCH better spent taking care of American problems, not the problems of foreign nations.
Sorry for getting off message in re respect for the military service people…Please pay close attention to the following, as it is universally relevant: the blame for any action lies entirely with the wielder and not with the implement. For example, one can use a machete to harvest grain to feed one’s family, or one can use a machete to go on a killing spree. One can use $20.00 to buy one’s child a pair of shoes, but one can also use $20.00 to buy crack cocaine. One can use a hammer to help build a Habitat for Humanity house, or one can use that same hammer to kill puppies. The blame for the gross costs, and subsequent government financial shortcomings, of the Iraq war lie ENTIRELY with the Bush administration and NOT with the American service personnel. It was not the decision of the soldiers to invade Iraq. It was not the decision of the soldiers to remain in Iraq, even with no clear definition victory or path to such. The soldiers did not send themselves to Iraq. Granted that they enlisted to serve the nation, they did not decide to involve America in this mess, and ANY ATTEMPT, by Joe or anyone else, to associate opposition to the Iraq war with contempt for America’s brave miliatary men and women is not only loathsome but outright political hackery. I sincerely mean it when I say that ANYONE who attempts to draw this outrageous parallel is a moronic scoundrel, and ANYONE who attempts to affix causation blame for the Iraq war, or the heretofore unended occupation, to the American military personnel is an ignorant tool.
It is my sincere hope that Joe will come to terms with the INDISPUTABLE FACTS that I present in this forum. I present these facts, honestly not to pursue any agenda, but simply to refute the outrageous and uninformed claims that Joe seems to never run out of. I did not begin ANY of these discussions, and, before posting on this site, I had never posted to a blog or message board of any sort. I was charged by Ann Coulter, I mean Joe the Business Owner, to respond to his posting, and I found that shredding Joe’s arguments was not only virtually effortless but, I fear, useless toward convincing Joe that the truth is the truth. It seems as though Joe is only accepting of truth when it coincides with his political hackery. That means that Joe is accepting of very little truth.
Finally, I’d like to inject a bit of breaking news into this one-sided discussion. I would continue to tear asunder the tax arguments that Ann Coulter, I mean Joe, continues to make, but that’s already been done by some poster called “the rational one” and myself. Anywho, Sen. McCain received a rousing endorsement today from Dick Cheney. Cheney told a gathering in Wyoming that he is apparently “…delighted to support John McCain.” Oh bother…the hits just keep on comin’. Joe, I have taken the liberty of including the below link for the second time. It is my hope that you took the time to view the entire segment the first time that I posted it, but just in case you didn’t or if anyone who reads this blog hasn’t yet had the opportunity to view it, here we go again…
This is the man who endorsed Sen. McCain today!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
Oh OK, I see that I am talking to someone from MSNBC. So, it is ok to give millions to other countries, say, when tsunami’s hit them, or a major earthquake shakes them up. And if we don’t, we’re assholes, but yet, when one of the countries leaders are going completely insane and ruining their civilization we cannot step in and help the people? It is ok for us to be world police when it comes to giving money to help the welfare of the world, but it’s not ok to be world police when we think that one of the countries is in dire need of restraint from a rogue leader?
Let’s make something clear, I’m not happy that our troops are over there in Iraq getting killed. But, losing some of our brave soldiers is the price of war. Don’t make money the issue, because I clearly stated the money issue and comparitively speaking on how much it is costing versus how much is being wasted elsewhere in my previous post. No political leader will come out and say what I’m about to say, but it is simply the TRUTH. Every parent of a soldier in Iraq would absolutely fall to the floor over what I’m about to say.
When you sign up for the Army, Military, Air Force, etc. You aren’t just signing up to get free education and collect a $3000.00 check for passing go. You are signing up to fight for our country in any debacle (as you would say) we may get ourselves into. I could understand if there had been a draft and unwilling people were getting sent over there, but everyone that has gone over there signed up for the job. If you were guaranteed to never have to fight in a war, then wouldn’t you sign up for the army reserves to collect a $3000 check and get a free education for doing so? Yes, you would, right along with everyone. You take a risk when you sign up for the Army, and anyone who signed up took that risk. If they weren’t willing to take that chance, they shouldn’t have signed up. It is devastating to see our soldiers getting killed in the act of duty, but name one war that didn’t cost lives of our American soldiers? World War I & II costed us hundreds of thousands of American Soldiers. Democrats have been counting the casualties, like they can’t believe that lives our lost during time of war, and completely arguing the war from day one. Swinging the American public against the war along the way. You know, if there was any media during World War I or World War II to amount to anything, we would have had as many people arguing those wars as we do today. To date, we have lost 4189 soldiers in the Iraq war. Could you imagine what it would be like if the United States would have had the media they have today during both World Wars. When they numbers of casualties hit 100,000, don’t you think that the American public would be flipping out. Well, who talks like anything bad happened in either of the World Wars? This is because you don’t have the media absolutely obliterating the war, because there was simply no media. But in the end, those wars were respected. If you don’t finish the war in Iraq, you will never know what the end outcome would be. Once you see what actually is done over there once we complete the mission and the war is won, you might would be glad that we went. But, if you don’t know what the outcome is, then you will never know. If someone during World War II stepped up and said how many casualties there were constantly, don’t you think you would have alot of people opposing the war. But that didn’t happen and everyone was glad we went, although over 200,000 were lost and we WON.
You will never justify the casualties of this war unless we stay and win. Otherwise, this war will constantly haunt our country as a total failure and those troops lost their lives for nothing. The truth is, they did fight for something, and what kind of backstabbing would it be to leave Iraq without finishing the job that they lost their lives helping to start. I don’t think that would be honoring your soldiers, I believe that would be stabbing them in the back, by not letting them finish the job that was set to do.
To end this post, I will leave you with several links to youtube videos with associations to Obama. If you want to bring up guilty by assosiation, what has the Democrats been doing to McCain w/Bush, McCain w/ Cheney, etc. This is just payback. LOL
This was Obama’s Mentor as mentions in Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope”.
Not to mention that “The Audacity of Hope” was the name of one of Jeremiah Wright’s speeches.
I believe you have all heard of Bill Ayers
Hell, this is Obamas wife
IF ANYTHING, WATCH THIS ONE!!!
Want Change, you’re getting what you ask for
My links didn’t post correctly on the previous post, so here they are again.
Obama’s mentor as mentioned in his book that was named after one of this guy’s speeches, “The Audacity of Hope”
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?swf=http%3A//s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/cps-vfl62057.swf&video_id=9hPR5jnjtLo&rel=1&showsearch=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i2.ytimg.com/vi/9hPR5jnjtLo/hqdefault.jpg&sk=ch3l4JxtEiHaBoyl00R-T1BG-vj40dVYC&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1&hqt=1&fs=1&hl=en
I believe you all have heard of Bill Ayers
http://www.youtube.com/v/DWY-vi7G7Dw&hl=en&fs=1
Hell, this is Michelle Obama
http://www.youtube.com/v/u4pSFrHfMWs&hl=en&fs=1
http://www.youtube.com/v/3Vycxh1oSUo&hl=en&fs=1
http://www.youtube.com/v/5HhWwBTGQS8&hl=en&fs=1
IF ANYTHING, WATCH THIS ONE
http://www.youtube.com/v/MR8p0bro9RM&hl=en&fs=1
Want Change? Your getting what you ask for here.
http://www.youtube.com/v/-3zHBXg18nc&hl=en&fs=1
WOW Joe the Business Owner, I mean Ann Coulter, this will be my last reply as arguing with someone who consistently ignores facts is just about as pointless as anything that i know.
Your arguments are completely based on your view on the world and are in no way related to fact.
Here is one of your quotes from your last response:
“Don’t make money the issue, because I clearly stated the money issue and comparitively speaking on how much it is costing versus how much is being wasted elsewhere in my previous post.”
I encourage you to do some actual research on our federal budget. But I know you won’t actually do that so I will post a link. But you probably wont look at that either because its a legitimate fact that you can’t respond to with anything but some more baseless ideas that I deconstruct with facts. Joe the Business Owner, I mean Ann Coulter, defense spending is 50% of our national budget, this is a staggering number and doesn’t even include all the costs of the wars. The reason that you can’t accurately determine how much we are spending on our defense and the two wars is because when they need funding for Iraq they pass it as an emergency spending bill. This money is never reported as defense budget spending. Now these are indisputable facts. So your statement is completely false, there is no way we could save as much money in other ways because defense is the majority of our budget. If we cut every other dollar the government spent out of the budget it still would not equal our defense spending.
Here is some quick FACTS about our defense spending. And I repeat FACTS
-US military spending is 37 times larger than the COMBINED spending of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Sudan, and North Korea.
-US military constitutes 49% of the entire worlds military spending
- Less than half of aid from the United States goes to the poorest countries where people earn less than$2 a day.
- The largest recipients are strategic allies such as Egypt, Israel, Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.
- there are 2,700 employees working for the largest relief agency in the world food program (WFP), funded by 191 nations.
-there are 120,000 employees working for Northrup Grumman, a leading defense contractor primarily funded by the U.S.
-two B-2 bombers cost the US military 4.4 billion
-the world food program (WFP), again the largest relief agency in the world, annual budget is 3.2 bililon
-and last but not least while the united states government is by far spends the most money on there military in the world can you guess how high we are on the list of nations giving aid to the poorest countries. By percentage of our national budget, we give second to LAST in the world to poor countries.
Your argument about giving welfare to other nations could be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said. Very, very, very little of our spending goes to aiding poor countries. This is a FACT
Now I will steer away from facts and give you my view on winning the war on terror.
If you really wanted to protect our nation from terrorism you would realize that poverty creates conditions of instability. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan and
Somalia, the poorest countries on earth, are also the countries where terrorist
groups have found safe havens. In regions where people are desperate and barely surviving, terrorist groups have easily won support by building schools and
improving conditions. For the United States to win in regions where terrorists
operate, the U.S. will have to do more to improve the plight of people living in
those regions.
If you think this is a naive democratic argument like most of my other republican friends, you’ve again mistaken because the current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gave an entire speech on the subject at Kansas State University. Here is a link to the transcript http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1199
Anyways Joe the Business Owner, I mean Ann Coulter, to think that we can continue to dominate the world with our military alone is completely naive and ignorant to world history. If we want to continue to be the worlds only true superpower we have to realize that economic power, and making friends not enemies worldwide, is the true path to sustain america’s power.
As stated above, I’ve grown weary. I’ve grown all too weary of continually exposing and dismantling EVERY SINGLE talking point that Ann Coulter, I mean Joe the Business Owner, hurls against the wall. I am able to now see that, regardless the number of angles toward or level of ferocity with which Joe’s wholly unsubstantiated hog wash is collectively torn asunder and effortlessly discredited, it matters not. I have given Joe every opportunity to even casually acknowledge the CONCRETE, UNDISPUTED TRUTHES with which I have pelted his platform, and yet he refuses concede any point, and consequently refuses to salvage any shred of credibilty that his now beleaguered ideology would otherwise retain. This blind loyalty to the neoconservative ideology is extremely dangerous and contradictory to the promotion of independent thought.
Now on to the newest proud slew of unbelievable incoherencies:
Your bull mess: “So, it is ok to give millions to other countries, say, when tsunami’s hit them, or a major earthquake shakes them up. And if we don’t, we’re assholes, but yet, when one of the countries leaders are going completely insane and ruining their civilization we cannot step in and help the people? It is ok for us to be world police when it comes to giving money to help the welfare of the world, but it’s not ok to be world police when we think that one of the countries is in dire need of restraint from a rogue leader?”
Reality: It is the inherant, stated policy of the United Nations to provide disaster relief aid to affected populations, who would likely parish in far greater numbers if no such immediate food/medical/shelter/water/logistical were provided. The U.S. will always be inherantly involved in every such relief effort due to the fact that the U.S. provides approximately 25% of the UN’s annual operating expenditures and by default, as it remains the lone global superpower. Proportionally speaking, the U.S. provides only that same 25% of any and all such disaster relief.
And toward that whole “rogue leader” mess…I’ve already addressed that ad nauseum…history and the present day are littered with such leaders…by your logic the U.S. should invade and conquer the central governments of North Korea, Sudan, Congo, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Burma, the Palenstinean West Bank in Israel and Russia…and China has an absolutely abhorable record on human rights, opposition suppression, aggression toward Taiwan and is openly Communist…do we then invade and conquer China? Also, was the brutality of the Hussein regime the reason that W. gave as grounds for the invasion of Iraq? Hmmmmmmm….oh yeah…no. So, since the tauted WMD stockpiles did not exist, did W. conveniently change the motivation for the invasion of a sovereign nation to regime cruelty when the first thing he tried didn’t exactly pan out? Absolutely unbelievable…
Your mess: “You take a risk when you sign up for the Army, and anyone who signed up took that risk. If they weren’t willing to take that chance, they shouldn’t have signed up.”
Reality: This is true. The risk of armed combat is inherant for any member of the U.S. armed forces. However, when enlisting in the armed forces, do you honestly believe that recruits would even consider the possibility that they’d be sent to fight in an unending conflict, by arguably the worst U.S. president in history, for reasoning that would turn out to be completely untrue? I’d be willing to wager that that motto isn’t exactly advertised on any piece of military recruiting literature.
Also, I sincerely wish that you hadn’t attempted to draw even the slightest historical parallel between the current Iraq war and WWII. This analogy is ridiculous on SO MANY levels that I shan’t begin to address it, as it would literally require hours in order to properly do so. The following is a brief summation: A worlwide conflict in which the very existence of the majority of an entire ethnicity of people, the very survival of the French state, the very survival of Great Britain, the very survival of several logistically crucial North African states, the very survival of the Polish, Belgian, Dutch, Scandanavian and Australian states, integral U.S. security of Hawai’i and the entire Pacific military installation system, and the strong possibility that Nazism would have spread across Eurasia VS. the possibility that a rogue nation MAY POSSIBLY have had stockpiles of WMD’s, which they did not. Not much of a comparison there, Joe…PLEASE consider your thoughts before writing them.
Your ABSOLUTELY OUT OF CONTROL MESS: “You know, if there was any media during World War I or World War II to amount to anything, we would have had as many people arguing those wars as we do today. To date, we have lost 4189 soldiers in the Iraq war. Could you imagine what it would be like if the United States would have had the media they have today during both World Wars. When they numbers of casualties hit 100,000, don’t you think that the American public would be flipping out. Well, who talks like anything bad happened in either of the World Wars? This is because you don’t have the media absolutely obliterating the war, because there was simply no media.”
Reality: Did you ACTUALLY just contend that there was no media coverage of either of the World Wars? Wow…below are just a few examples of media coverage of both…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0-fVLCnsBs&feature=related
(WWII British RAF)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVDUXPB_sTs
(rare WWI rally cry)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KLQxtDOkZA
(the very famous journalist Edward R. Murrow)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnP-KlNVE2E&feature=related
(LIVE CBS radio coverage of Hitler’s declaration of war against Poland in 1939)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoGWKbQUmTs&feature=related
(CBS 7th Aug. 1945 aftermath of atomic bomb dropped on Japan)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nvwMcjAwiw&feature=related
(TV coverage of the Japanese surrender)
…and there are literally thousands more out there…hmmmmmm…turns out that there WAS media coverage back then…so what you claimed was 100% false…and do you notice that all the aforementioned examples are positive toward the Allied war efforts?…could it be because WWII was necessary and the Iraq war was not necessary?…and these examples do not include any of the tens of thousands newspaper headlines from across the world…c’mon, Joe. Be serious.
In conclusion, I pose you a question, Joe. Why is it that, after THREE individual requests for a clear definition of what would constitute an absolute American victory in the Iraq war, I’ve received A’NARY? You claim that, unless U.S. forces exit Iraq with victory, all casualities are for naught. What is victory? Saddam was hanged. The Iraqi people have had democratic elections. Saddam’s sons were killed in a shootout. The new Iraqi government is led by a democratically elected president and prime minister. Insurgent violence is down substantially following the backroom payments from the U.S. to Al Sadr that directly caused the Sunni awakening, but does anyone realistically believe that all insurgent violence will ever stop? Where is the finish line? What can be done? Where does it end?
Finally, I’ll leave you with a couple of quotes from the 40th U.S. president, who Rush Limbaugh refers to as “Ronaldus Magnus” (Latin for “Ronald the Great”). Reagan, and Limbaugh for that matter, is the classic conservative icon. Below are two of his more famous quotations. Reagan had some truly funny zingers, but these serve as exceptional examples of what I’ve been posting. Hopefully everyone will enjoy their irony, especially relative to Joe’s disregard of the state of all things.
“Don’t be afraid to see what you see.”
“Facts are stupid things.”