Shorter Lauri Regan
Posted on November 15th, 2008 by Tintin
ABOVE: Lauri Regan, Esq.
- The reason we have a nefarious terrorist as our next President is because all the idiots, socialists, n*g*ers, and Jews voted for him.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
It never ceases to amaze me. Someone who complains bitterly about “Bush Derangement Syndrome” having the gall to go off on Obama for policies he’s never endorsed, sins he’s never committed, and a presidency that hasn’t even started yet. The complete lack of self awareness is awe-inspiring.
I thought the reason was either the nefarious treason of ACORN or Obama’s neuromatomic hypnosis.
OMG, hte Stoopid…it BURNS. She opens with a Talking Heads quote (someone please tell her the band wasn’t conservative or racist, like her), and from there it just gets worse. But the comments…oh, the comments! We get brilliance like the following:
And they get that way by googling “socialism” and then selecting and believing the right-wing distortions of its meaning. Who’s been dumbed down by “Dancing With the Stars”, again?
I don’t get it. How did those tits and their tee shirt type a column?
She forgot the liberal-biased Mainstream Mediaâ„¢??
Oh, and the fawning comments are hilarious. I tried a minor criticism; waiting to see if it makes it in.
That photoshop is sending me mixed signals.
Everything below the neck is from a photo of someone other than Lauri Regan.
“I thought the reason was either the nefarious treason of ACORN or Obama’s neuromatomic hypnosis.”
They do like that word “nefarious”, don’t they? . It reminds me of the Batman TV show describing the Joker.
I also like all those anecdotes about how they tell off their stupid liberal friends. They seem to have a lot of them. And they get upset when they’re told to stop with the fucking emails already!
I also like all those anecdotes about how they tell off their stupid liberal friends. They seem to have a lot of them.
Kind of like political columnists just happen to ride in a lot of taxis with well-informed drivers who will gladly expound on current events in a corporate-friendly cesntrist manner.
As the end of this never ending presidential campaign approached
When an article opens like this, you know you’re in for a roller-coaster ride of LITERACY FAIL.
What do you liberals think of that?
I think we should just tax anyone who uses a 5-letter nickname beginning with “T” 100% of their income.
By the way, the “global firm” in New York that employs Ms. Regan is White & Case, where she apparently has a banking practice. I wonder if she got caught up in White & Case’s recent layoff of 70 lawyers and 100 staff, due in part to “lack of work in practice areas including banking and securities.” If so, my sympathies to her (honestly — I’ve been there), and I fully understand why she might want some of that wingnut welfare.
As that great Canadian Parizeau put it: “we were beaten by money and the ethnic vote”.
“What do you liberals think of that?”
Works for me. I’ll never see $100k/year, anyways, what the fuck do I care? Boohoo, bitch, get some new material.
I see we’re back to “copy your comment before you submit” era, now. Previous comment got et.
Regan claims that Obama is now going to raise taxes on people making more than $120K (rather than the $250K limit he campaigned on.) What do you liberals think of that?
I think her “claim” is a link to another column from the same wingnut cesspool that hosts her column, and the linked column says $120,000 without so much as a citation. I think if you have something more substantial than that to support her claim, you should let us know. That’s what I think.
For Lauri Regan, who is so concerned about Jews and their perception of Obama.
Cripes, Bill Richardson and Barack Obama are the same person?
Wow. Explains a lot.
My theory – that liberalism is driven by hatred
My theory – that brontosaurs are thin on one end, large in the middle, and thin again at the far end – has not been disproved yet, so there, pbbbbbbblt
“Check this out: http://politicswest.com/32378/breaking_news_bill_richardson_lowers_obamas_definition_rich_down_120_000
We’ll see, of course, but tax policy is shaping up to be yet another area where the expectations are being dramatically changed right after the election”
Except for the fact that the clip was posted more than two weeks ago . In fact Limbaugh played it on 31st October . So now perhaps The Truth can explain to me how it is ‘after the election’ .
BTW it is futile to explain to the dittoheds that the clip never implies that Obama is going to raise the taxes for those who earn above 120K .
I thought liberalism was driven by Volvos.
And now, Bill Richardson says that “there is a tax cut for those” making $120,000 and under, implying that anyone making over $120,000 will be penalized by an Obama administration.
It doesn’t actually imply what he infers, as he recognizes in the very next sentence(though he pooh-poohs the logical conclusion, it doesn’t make his thinking any less fallacious), and as several of his commenters point out.
You support my theory conservative trolling is public self-abuse coupled with bull-headedness, like so many minotaurs ‘batin.
so…
truthie
that link leads to a right-wing commentator in a far-right publication making a false claim (in that in fact nowhere does richardson say anything about obama raising taxes on those making more than 120k) said by someone who does not speak for the administration in any capacity, official or otherwise.
see, truth, this is why you are such a piece of shit. you take one person’s lie, lie about that lie and then claim it supports your preconceived notion. this is the behavior of a not-very-bright teenager, though as a teenager i was never as stupid as you, never as set in my ways, never as closed off to new information. you are a total fucking idiot. there are lots of smart people on the right–some are my friends and colleagues–you shame them all with your bullshit.
BTW it is futile to explain to the dittoheds that the clip never implies that Obama is going to raise the taxes for those who earn above 120K .
I would love to hear the rest of that phone interview to hear how Richardson came to the 120K figure. Something tells me that something is being taken out of context.
Doesn’t the name of her blog constitute false advertising? There seem to be no rational processes involved here at all.
We’ll see, of course, but tax policy is shaping up to be yet another area where the expectations are being dramatically changed right after the election.
“Read…my…..lips…”
Hmmm..That sounds funnier when you say it. Doesn’t really translate too well went you type it out.
That picture of Uncle Sam posed as “the Thinker” in the banner over there? I think a better picture, more in keeping with the content of the site, would be one of Joe the Plumber perched on his toilet, pants around his ankles, in the same pose of deep thought.
Hey folks just got word they’re finishing up the barbed wire now so we shouldn’t have to put up with these morons much longer.
How the flies treating ya toothless?
“Very interesting and revealing. My theory – that liberalism is driven by hatred”
As opposed to conservatism which is full of milk of human kindness . Just ask those niggers , faggots , kikes , towelheads , chinks .
The Times never mentioned ACORN? or Bill Ayers??? Really?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4SUNA_enUS234US234&q=site%3Anytimes.com+Acorn+obama+&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4SUNA_enUS234US234&q=%22Bill+Ayers%22+site%3Anytimes.com+obama
oe noes, teh googul, it hurtz!!!
The more I read wingnut writing there seems to be some math involved. Regan’s piece went on and on and on, with absolutely no point. Liberal bloggers get to the point immediately. Then you must add the humor factor. Ergo the equation becomes:
Liblog writing + humor /100 = Wingnut blogger.
Discuss, with extra points for the humor factor.
Gotta love ‘Black Box’ wingnuttia
If she’d read about ‘real’ Socialism, she’d think it was pretty nice, unless she’s a millionaire, like I.
I think the only possible logical response to Ms. Regan’s summation of today’s political situation is this.
Even shorter Regan: All you of Earth are idiots!
We are still yet to reach peak wingnut.
I’m amused about Wingnutsylvannia’s obsession with the “Fairness Doctrine” and their all-consuming fear that soon the black helicopters will soon land on their rooftops, the Men in Black will jackbootingly kick down their doors and confiscate their radios and computers, while using the flashy-thingy on them to erase Jesus and Sean Hannity from their brains.
A re-implementation of the Fairness Doctrine would not mean no wingnuts on the AM radio waves anymore. It would simply mean no wingnut-ONLY radio stations on the AM dial anymore. It would effect liberal-leaning radio stations too. All stations would have to offer a variety of viewpoints, the same way it was from 1939 to 1982. And somehow the Republic did not perish in those years the Fairness Doctrine was in effect.
Heck, shortwave radio was never regulated under the Fairness Doctrine. That’s how Father Coughlin did it. But then, Coughlin never got a 300 million dollar contract for his “talent” as a media star either.
“This is just too easy, liberals. Let me know if DrDick shows up.”
Just like mcCain had got Obama where he wanted him .
their all-consuming fear that soon the black helicopters will soon land on their rooftops, the Men in Black will jackbootingly kick down their doors and confiscate their radios and computers, while using the flashy-thingy on them to erase Jesus and Sean Hannity from their brains
We wouldn’t be so lucky.
This is exactly the sort of hyper-sexual imagery and frenzied xylophone jungle beat that Obama used to brainwash the weak-willed voters of our once-great nation.
Love her writing style, which is that of a dutiful tenth grader who is–or thinks she should be–teacher’s pet.
Also, Jennifer points out something that always strikes me (and that one previous graphic accomplished): How can you not see that that picture of Uncle Sam meditating immediately evokes images of sittin’ on the john? It not only looks like that, it looks *exactly* like that.
Yes, I’m saying wingnuts sometimes are unable to perceive accurately the world around them. It’s a controversial thesis but I stand by it.
“I spent the next five months forwarding information to her that was not readily available in the mainstream . . .:” “I have one liberal friend that claims to have read my emails . . .” “So, again, I sent my Jewish friends and relatives articles about Obama’s pro-Palestinian advisors . . .”
I wonder how many of her acquaintances voted for Obama because they were turned off by the lunacy of her anti-Obama emails.
“How can you not see that that picture of Uncle Sam meditating immediately evokes images of sittin’ on the john? It not only looks like that, it looks *exactly* like that.”
When I first saw that logo here I was sure that it was photoshopped .
“I think the only possible logical response to Ms. Regan’s summation of today’s political situation is this.”
How’d they get Jimmy Carter to deliver that pussycat line? What a career HE’S had.
Truthy, you really need a new hook. Doughy Pantload already has a copyright on the “anything you say just further underscores my point” nonsense.
You act like hating what Bush and his neo/theocon followers have done to this country is a bad thing.
But do I “hate” Ms. Regan personally? No, I think she’s an idiot, like not-Joe the not-Plumber and Caribou Barbie. That’s why we point at them and laugh, like we do with you.
Drumming up a set of false premises and them yukkity-yukking about how it “proves” your point doesn’t prove a damn thing. We’ll just point and laugh some more.
Doesn’t the name of her blog constitute false advertising? There seem to be no rational processes involved here at all.
In fairness to Ms. Regan, she herself did note that her “analysis” was not complete.
Is she taking these slogans completely sincerely?
Is she taking these slogans completely sincerely?
“Country First”, or, in the original iteration, “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!”
How could you reject something as sincere and mavericky as that?
Where’s Megan McCardle?
We don’t need no stinking NTSB. If the free marketâ„¢ were allowed to operate efficiently, Minnesodas would eventually move to states where the bridges haven’t collapsed. Yet.
I like pumpkin and key lime the best.
The Truth , first explain how the Richardson statement shows that “expectations are being dramatically changed right after the election”.
Is she taking these slogans completely sincerely?
For all the Kool-Aid jokes about Obama-heads, I have to say his slogan is a far superior political slogan than Country First. What the holy hell is Country First supposed to mean? Of course it supposed to 1) evoke nationalism, and 2) make the insinuation that your opponent doesn’t have our nation’s interest first. But that’s not sloganeering we can believe in, my friends. So lame.
Oh come on, Loneoak, it couldn’t be more clear: of the two types of music, western comes second.
Um
Has it come to this? Are you now intent on being 100% incorrect on even the tiniest issues?
Do you spend your mornings demanding the sun rise in the west, then while away the evenings commanding it set in the east?
OK, I don’t fully understand American legal systems despite years of watching Judge Judy (“does it say schmuck on my forehead?” yes, but you can’t see it) but how did such braindead person get to be an attorney?
Perhaps one of the attributes needed is to unconditionally believe everything ones client tells one?
The Truth , don’t change the subject . You said that Richardson statement somehow shows that “expectations are being dramatically changed right after the election†. This is patently false becuse the statement was made before the elections . This is also dishonest on your part because you are falsely claiming that Obama was saying one thing before the elections ( when he had to get the votes ) and saying another after the elections . I am not interested in engaging in a subjective debate with you . If you have a point which can be proved true or false I’m at your service .
We think you’re still peeing your pants.
Thank you for introducing me to Ween. Anyway, I enjoyed their music and singing. They remind me of “The Mentors” another band I like quite a bit. “Blarney Stone” may be my favorite, but I found lots more Ween videos at U-Tube.
I saw today that the racketeering laws are to be used in a trial related to Republican malfeasance. That I like. More than anything else, it was the feeling of legal invulnerability which will put them in jail. They thought it would never end.
Just checking things here.
See Peggster Noonans for comedy gold.
~
Just checking things here.
=============================
The situation here is excellent.
Over.
Meanwhile, some shrewd foreign policy analysis from The Astute Bloggers:
We shoulda nuked fuckin’ Tora Bora.
Lots of exclamation points and scream capitals.
Mayday! Mayday!
(…oh wait, no, that’s for the wingnut sites…)
Y’know, I’m probably going to get flamed for this, but I honestly think President-Elect Obama should adopt some conservative principles during his first term, and bring back Eisenhower era tax rates.
For all the Kool-Aid jokes about Obama-heads, I have to say his slogan is a far superior political slogan than Country First.
Absolutely, especially given the fact that, you know, things should change, and the people that weren’t acknowledging that things should be better didn’t have a very good election.
We shoulda nuked fuckin’ Tora Bora.
They make a compooling case.
My dear Troofinator – I am so sick of the knee-jerk ‘raise taxes’ meme that you righties insist on flogging like a dead horse. Do you honestly think that income taxes are the only indicator of how much real money you have or don’t have? And do you believe that every penny of your wages or ‘profit’ that comes into your hands was earned by you with no help from any other entity? Unless you pulled it directly out of your ass (which is not entirely out of the question, I suppose) there are factors that enabled you to earn that money – factors like roads so you can get to work, and that supplies can be delivered to you; communications infrastructure so you can contact the people you work with and/or sell to; building standards so that your office does not collapse around your ears; educated workers for you to hire, thanks to public education for all, not just those who can ‘afford’ it; and, most of all, a legal infrastructure that enables you to enter into binding contracts that are backed by the legal system of the US.
That’s just a tiny fraction of the infrastructural benefits of living and doing business in the US – benefits that have been paid for by taxes – yours and mine. Yet, you conservatives act like you produced everything you have with no help from anyone else (see “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps”) and that to ask you to pay your fair share is tantamount to theft.
What a short-sighted, selfish, childish idea. You’re like a five-year-old who wants to put up a lemonade stand with his mom’s table, lemons, pitcher, and sugar, and then thinks he did it “all by his own self!” and throws a tantrum if he can’t keep all the money.
Then, the question of ‘taxes’ itself.
Do you think you’re better off if your ‘taxes’ are low, but the cost of all the rest of the things you pay for – housing, health care, gas, insurance, electricity, are doubled? Can you do the math, Truth? This word ‘tax’ is meaningless without figuring in all the rest of the things we have to pay for and how much they cost.
Grow up, or be quiet while the grownups are talking.
The fact is, Obama claimed he was going to raise taxes on people making more than $250K. This is socialism and anti-USA
Ah, my imitators enjoy saying that my words are my imitator’s words, libs. It is to laugh.
it is to doze off…
Hey! Is this thing on now? Yay!
(…I think all of us desperately clicking stimulated it back to life!)
The fact is, liberals do not deal well with facts and logic, but go straight to emotion and unbalanced leftist craziness, which is why they got fooled by Osama’s slick campain. Rest assured, he is a terrorest and a socialest, and wants USA to fail, so do liberals, and only us patriots are left to defend the Heartland and keep free people free. You liberals, it is too late for you, you are lost…. there will be a reckoing soon, you will pay for what you did to soften America up for invasion. The black people are already rising up in some states because they swalled the revolutuionary BS and think there will be reparations and free money just for being black, but what about hard work, ?, nary a word from socailists who want everythibng handed to them.
This thing works in Explorer, but less so in firefox. At least that’s my current story.
~
ittdgy: Well, your trademarx are coming through correctly now. I think ckc(not kc) is on to something — we all squoze our eyes tight and wished real hard three times that Sadly would return, and then it did.
PS — TGW update: I’m now unbanned again. Must have something to do with the post-election non-site-hit-ation over there. Nevertheless, I’ll not ever comment there again! Nevah evah! That’ll show ’em.
Terror… Terrier… Terrorest
…but what about hard work, ?,
I think some concentrated effort with spellcheck might pay off.
Instaputz has declared:
THE WAR IS OVER AND WE WON!!
So take that st00pid LIE-bruls.
John Derbyshire’s down and dirty reproductive review.
Sarah Palin is an emblem of happy reproductive vigor and Mormonism is wonderfully encouraging of reproductive success.
In addition, some of the lefty blogs are freakshows. And damned proud of it.
Intercourse the Penguin!
So take that st00pid LIE-bruls.
I really miss the real Truth’s sophisticated sophistry.
It’s seems to me reproductive success is the easiest success of all.
Clueless teenagers do it all the time.
I really miss the real Truth’s sophisticated sophistry.
it’s too bad “sophia” means wisdom rather than truth (otherwise the alliteration would be awesome)
GR:
…wants USA to fail…
Fail how? Endless war? Total financial meltdown? Unemployment rates not seen for decades? How retarded can you be not to see what’s right in front of your face? Your philosophy FAILED.
Clueless teenagers are emblems of happy copulative vigor.
As emblems, okay as biology goes. As people in our society, it could be the last success they experience.
umm? teenage sex vs the war in Iraq? I think the war is a safer topic!
The situation here is excellent.
Over.
I’m high on the real thing – powerful gasoline, a clean windshield and a shoeshine! Over.”
To everybody here trying to reason with me:
It won’t work. I’m just here to make you waste time. Even if you beat me 100% on a point (which you always do) I will just change the subject.
It is better if you just make fun of me and laugh at my insane ramblings.
THAT’S the real Truth! Bravo!
Truth, I’m your best friend here. I have never taken you seriously, and never will.
Dammit, I completely bitch-slapped those ‘tards with my economic acumen over there at the Deep Thinkers, Inc post you linked…only to see the thread comments die.
I hate it when no one gets to comment on my brilliance.
The ‘o’ was a typo.
Regan claims that Obama is now going to raise taxes on people making more than $120K
HA! Just missed me. How I don’t get a raise this year!
I stick my fingers in my butt when I masturbate, which is several times a day. What does this mean?
What does this mean?
you better hope that the phone doesn’t ring
Jennifer said, “That picture of Uncle Sam posed as “the Thinker” in the banner over there? I think a better picture, more in keeping with the content of the site, would be one of Joe the Plumber perched on his toilet, pants around his ankles, in the same pose of deep thought.”
Hilarious. And if you’re the same Jennifer who posted the comment to Ms. Regan’s absurd post dated 11/15/08 10:10am, let me tell you that is the best and most concise summary of GOP FAIL I’ve yet seen. Well done.
You should consider starting your own blog, like the also excellent Susan of Texas.
Jennifer said, “I hate it when no one gets to comment on my brilliance.”
Ha! I swear I didn’t see this last comment of yours prior to posting mine (just above).
Why yes, yes it was me.
…sniff…it’s so nice to be ….appreciated…sniff
Seriously, thanks. And yes, I will at some point in the near future be starting up a blog, even though I’m not the wittiest or smartest person on the tubes, on some days, I do hit it out of the park if I say so myself. So I’m glad that at least someone saw me hit that homer.
Let us know when you do, Jennifer.
I appreciate you too!
I stick my fingers in my butt when I masturbate, which is several times a day. What does this mean?
Well, it depends on how many you’re shoving up there!
1: Just exploring. That’s okay, Troof! Everyone does it!
2-3: Slightly homoerotic. If you had a girlfriend (*snort!*), she’d prolly be questioning your sexuality.
4+: Uh ohs. Real, red-blooded Amurrrrcan hate guys like you. Better move out of the heartland and get your ass to MA or CT while they’re still ghey-friendly.
ps- Remember, Cheeto dust can cause those hemorrhoids to flare up, so to be safe, wipe your hand on your shirt before you start pleasuring yourself!
ckc (not kc) said,
November 16, 2008 at 3:29
What does this mean?
you better hope that the phone doesn’t ring
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that was carved from pure win.
Hey, didn’t “The Truth” say he wasn’t commin here anymore?
Uh — did anyone else glimpse the WordPress administrator posts here a couple of hours ago? Or was I having an acid flashback?
Nah, that was the shitty version of Rugged In Montana who owes me money.
Uh — did anyone else glimpse the WordPress administrator posts here a couple of hours ago? Or was I having an acid flashback?
Nah, I saw them and even left a comment.
oh yeah Truth, liberalism is driven by hate. So, just as you asked us to repeatedly to rationalize Jena, please explain this sickening stuff, or just go away:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20081115/D94F32JG0.html
I dunno…I’m having a hard time deciding whether ckc (not kc) or Our Dead Selves is more full of win. On the one hand, ckc (not kc) was wonderfully snappy and concise. On the other hand, Our Dead Selves’ elaborations layered on the funny. I think I have to call it a draw.
Oh Toothless, you think EVERY dumbfucking talking point you get from Wingnuttia is a real concern. Nobody here is dancing around anything–we are stomping on your head and you are simply too enamored of your own acquired stupidity to realize it.
Yeah, we won anyway, I don’t make $100k. I couldn’t give a damn less if the marginal tax rate over that is 100%. Most people don’t make $100k. If things keep going like they are, it won’t be a talking point to start crying about their future. People making that money will STFU and hide the fact that they make that much before the wretches warming their hands over garbage cans hear them and go liberate their houses.
Hey, didn’t “The Truth” say he wasn’t commin here anymore?
Hell, I’ll take the “I-like-things-in-my-butt” Truth over “I’m-a-consverative-jackass-whore” Truth any day of the week.
Hey Truth what’s the problem? Where are all those links with liberals calling for the killing of Bush? This just too easy…
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20081115/D94F32JG0.html
Hell, I’ll take the “I-like-things-in-my-butt” Truth over “I’m-a-consverative-jackass-whore” Truth any day of the week.
It’s all about The Buttocks here.
What does this mean?
you better hope that the phone doesn’t ring
Why I use Bluetooth, exhibit #17.
Complete Control.
Why would a site that calls itself Thinker invite a person who thinks like a myspace teenybopper to write for them?
What does this mean?
you better hope that the phone doesn’t ring
Why I use Bluetooth, exhibit #17.
I actually LOLed at this.
Also, ew.
Never mind the Buttocks…
Why I use Bluetooth, exhibit #17.
Oh – is that what “Browntooth” means?
Jennifer: Well done over there at TAT. I noticed that none of the commenters were able to refute anything you said. The people there who were soiling their shorts over “socialism” wouldn’t actually know socialism if it bit them on the ass while waving the hammer and sickle and humming “The Internationale”. It is worth noting that, with the exception of Texas, every state that went for McCain is a state whose citizens get back more from the Feds than they pay in taxes. It pains me to think that we blue staters subsidize these morons.
dave – I assumed that they had just moved on to the newest “Obama’s Opening Re-education Camps” post and that none of them saw it. Because, come on, you know at least some of those folks are dumb enough to try to argue past the obvious. But thanks for reading it your ownself.
Issue, Rule, Application…Crazy!
Hey! That’s my line!
(hum-tum-ye-prisoners-of-da-dum-dum…hum-de-dum-doo-dum-de-dum… for-justice-dum-de-condemnation…) [*]
I think I could read a four-hundred comment thread made of mock-mumbled lyrics.
Typical. Liberals don’t get it, never will and serve to make financial states for all of us just a little more worse off. But thanks for playing!
Now, back to my “Country”, where it looks to be some time before the Democrat-tilted Congress has already begun shoveling money to their cronies…
Now, back to my “Country”, where it looks to be some time before the Democrat-tilted Congress has already begun shoveling money to their cronies…
Is this in English?
I’ll throw out a quick non sequitor and then run for my bunker because I’m so scared of reality.
Now, back to my “Country”, where it looks to be some time before the Democrat-tilted Congress has already begun shoveling money to their cronies…
Hmm, Democratic dominated is more like it. ‘Tilted,’ my ass. How quick the fReichtards forget that when W. won on 1) fraud, and 2) the slimmest of majorities they had a ‘mandate’. The Democratic majority in Congress is larger than anything Gingrich had, moran.
Sing along!
Now, back to my “Country”, where
it looks to be some time before the Democrat-tilted Congress has already begun shoveling money to their cronies…I can mutter nonsensically to myself…There. Fixed.
p.s. Choosing to close with (…) is a stylistic nightmare. Please refrain from doing it in the future!
The Democrat-tilted Congress has already begun shoveling money to their cronies…
Oh, for the days when Republicans ruled everything and money-shovelling was based strictly on merit, rather than croneyism.
Heckuva Time, Brownie
I think I could read a four-hundred comment thread made of mock-mumbled lyrics.
So long as the correct words are mock-mumbled, I concur.
> Choosing to close with (…) is a stylistic nightmare. Please refrain from doing it in the future!
You’re really asking for a lot of trouble with a statement like that ….
American Thinker
[ADMINISTRATOR: Go away and bother some kindergartners.]
But that’s what you were doing!
Now that’s making sense. That’s plugging into reality. All it takes is reality check maximum to understand that nothing else will work.
How can people like this be so stupid and still live? You would think, according to the Darwinian law of natural selection, that once a person reaches this toxic level of stupidity the cardiovascular and pulmonary system would shut down.
Then again, decrying Darwinian theory as mere theory, this sense of denial, is what’s keeping them alive.
Now, back to my “Country”, where it looks to be some time before the Democrat-tilted Congress has already begun shoveling money to their cronies…
What’s Lauri doing here, when she has so many friends and relatives to e-mail?
Uh, what the hell is up with wordpress again?
How can people like this be so stupid and still live?
One of the few downsides to civilization. Fortunately it’s a self-correcting mechanism – those folks who think all good things accrue to them because of their inherent wonderfulness (and not that they are part of a system) tend go all John Galt, screw things up terribly (a la wars-for-profit and financial bubbles) and get kicked in the teeth when their actions screw things up for everybody else.
Republicanism, in its neo-con form, is ultimately self-defeating. I wish folks had wised up earlier, but then if they had, Barack X would not be about to become the leader of the free world.
protected static: “Hey, that’s MY line.”
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please let me know where to send the license fee.
Sincerely,
dave
Okay, I get it now… the posts that disappeared are some kind of meta-joke about ellipses, right?
As in: I had a strange vision that there used to be more posts on this thread, but now, they’re gone, vanished, like the ghost of some wonderful, terrible dream…
Fred – yeah, my post about being banned from Secret Agent Flowbee’s place for being too unrepentently rational ( I wasn’t even praising Obama; I merely posted the facts about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to one of the inmates who was lying about how the FMs and Democrats “caused the financial crisis”) has disappeared, though Lesley’s response to it remains.
Also, my plea for someone to go over there and taunt the stupid motherfuckers.
Seriously though, that’s all I did. I didn’t even call them stupid or crazy – just made the mistake of being reasonable and posting facts that didn’t fit their delusional storyline. The Admin suggested I go to FreeRepublic. I’m guessing Flowbee missed the irony in that, so I emailed them – coming from my email address that I used to post over there, it bounced back. So I went into one of my other email accounts and sent an email with the header “White woman claims to have Obama’s illegitamate child” and started the email with “Knew you’d bite”, then went on to say how proud Flowbee must be to be ringleader of the new freerepublic.
That one, of course, did not bounce back.
Heh.
Jennifer, would you please copy or recreate your 10:10am comment to Ms. Regan here? I’d like to copy it and post it on an expat message board I frequent here in Korea called Pusanweb. If that’s OK with you.
I’ll credit you however you like, and will be sure to direct you to its re-use in my own ongoing battle against our own local christopaths and/or conservitards. Thanks.
“Oh Stewardess”, here ’tis. I cut the first sentence that was in response to another comment because it doesn’t make sense without that preface:
Why is it that for 30 years Republicans campaigned on the idea that “taxes are too high, that’s YOUR money and you know how to spend it better than the government does”? But suddenly, tax cuts for some are “SOCIALISM!! OOGA-BOOGA!!!”
Let me tell you why: it’s because all the tax cuts they ever made were for people at the upper end of the income/wealth spectrum. You see, the well-off know how to spend their money better than the government does (hey, as we’re seeing now, it’s by investing it into worthless mortgage securities!), but the rest of us are dumbkoffs who can’t be trusted with “OUR money”. Never mind that for the past 8 years as we’ve seen a 20% growth in productivity, none of that got passed on to the producers – the workers – responsible for those gains. That wasn’t “socialism” and the people who pocketed those gains – why, it’s unAmerican to expect them to pick up more of the national tab. The people who produced those gains should just be content with the 300% increase in gasoline prices, the 100% increase in home heating prices, the 50% increase in cost for food, the 100% increase in cost of medical insurance, and not ask for a “handout” in the form of a lower tax burden.
I’d like to ask those commenting here who are convinced that lowering taxes on the producers and raising them on the owners is “socialism”: what happens in a poker game when one guy has all the chips? He can loan them to the other players to keep the game going, but when the other players lose those chips too, it’s game over. Do you see any parallel with the past 8 years? Try the mortgage meltdown. How is it that people who were so maxed out in credit card and home equity loan debt that they couldn’t afford to keep buying cheap Chinese crap at Wal-Mart were able to get loans to buy $300,000 houses? Think that was some kind of an accident? It wasn’t. It was the guy with all the chips loaning them to other players to keep the game going just a little longer. Well, the game is over now, and the plain truth has become clear: you can’t have a capitalist consumer economy when one guy or a small handful of guys own everything and have all the money. You want to know what else caused the mortgage meltdown? Things were so out of balance that the guys with all the money could no longer find places to invest all their excess money where it would earn a return. They couldn’t put it into manufacturing, because we don’t do that anymore – which is one reason why the income gap has continued to grow – and even if we did, people in hock up to their eyeballs can’t buy what you manufacture. They couldn’t put it into retail, because everyone was too far in debt to keep buying. So they put it into mortgages, on the rationale that real estate is a tangible asset that is safe and always grows in value. Normally, that’s true, when default rates are low. But what happens when all the guys looking for a place to invest throw their money into the mortgage market? The law of supply and demand “demands” more borrowers – in this case, people already so far in debt that they can’t buy retail goods. The pressure of all that money looking for a borrower exerted downward pressure on mortgage lending standards, and here we are. Think no one in the industry knew that a lot of people they were loaning to would never be able to keep up with the mortgage? Think again. Their assumption was that when the chumps got foreclosed, that house could just be sold to another chump. Unfortunately, when 1/3 of the borrowers are chumps, there aren’t enough qualified people left to buy those properties when the inevitable foreclosure occurs, and the value of the properties plummet. And again, here we are.
The government has two ways that it can curb the inevitable tendency in capitalist systems for all wealth to aggregate into very few hands: progressive taxation and mandatory minimum wages. Republicans, who claim to love capitalism, oppose both of those mechanisms. As of 1998, the wealthiest 10% of Americans owned 70% of all the wealth and assets of the nation while the poorest 40% owned 2/10ths of 1% of the wealth and assets. The Republican response was to lower taxes on that weathiest 10% of the population, and the spread has grown larger as a result. And again, here we are. If any of you here can explain to me how to keep a capitalist consumer economy moving when half of the people participating in it have no discretionary funds to use in consumption, fill me in, I’m all ears.
If it’s “socialism” to support a system of taxation that keeps the capitalist economy afloat, then put me down as a proponent of “socialism”. The alternative is what we’re seeing now. It’s ugly, and it’s not going to get any prettier any time soon.
After I commented here, I went to Lauri’s place and read your comment over there, too, Jennifer – it was awesome. And, of course, completely ignored by the bozo contingent. They literally have no mental mechanism to process something so foreign to their worldview as math, economics and common sense.
You are very much appreciated, believe me!
dave: It’s under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share-Alike license 🙂
I’d hate to have it ignored by the bozo section here.
dum, dee dum dum…
Troof – that’s all fine and good if you’re being honest about who all pays federal income tax. According to the Republicans, the bottom 40% don’t, and that’s bullshit. I should know, since I’m a member of that group and paid out about $7,000 in income tax last year.
But for those who don’t, typically it’s because they don’t make enough income and that coupled with the tax credit for children puts them below the threshold of owing income taxes. They still pay FICA taxes though, and if you find it so abhorrent that some people aren’t making enough money to pay income taxes, there’s a fix for that – it’s called “higher wages”. We’ve already addressed the fact that Republicans oppose those, too, and in addition we’ve noted that none of the 20% in productivity gains of this decade went to the workers who produced them.
You claim that the “wealthier don’t benefit” from doing things this way? I’d argue that companies like Wal-Mart benefit greatly from practices such as limiting workers to 30 hours per week so they don’t have to cover their health insurance. All of that gets offloaded onto public social services. If they paid people enough to do these things for themselves, maybe their taxes wouldn’t need to be as high. So again, pay higher wages or pay higher taxes, those are the choices.
As for your characterization of who are “the most productive people” and who are “less so”, go back to my point about productivity gains and who benefitted from those. It wasn’t the folks working longer hours or more efficiently; it was the CEOs and shareholders. That’s not “productivity”, that’s “skimming off the labor of others for your own gain”. Let’s also note that you equate “productivity” with “who makes more money”. That’s a nice trick, considering that the people who make the most money are the ones who determine how much money everyone who works for them will make, productivity notwithstanding. It’s all based on the metric of those who own, not those who produce.
So that still brings us back to “you can’t have a capitalist economy when half the people have no money”. If you can work out a way around that while still clinging to the mantra that the people who have the most money have the most value and therefore shouldn’t be hampered from having ALL the money by paying higher taxes or paying higher wages – then get back to us and let us know. Because I don’t see a way around it, and if you do, you should spell it out rather than relying on this blather about how those who have all the money are by definition “productive” while those they underpay are not.
the wealthier still benefit from the taxation
the crux of your ignorance
..my employer has to pay more for our roads, libraries, courthouses, police, etc than I do, but he or she also benefits from these services.
You don’t understand taxation. Like I said – ignorance.
It is when you factor in tax breaks, subsidies, loopholes, bailouts, investment credits, public-private partnerships, declarations of ‘blight’ and so on and so forth and so on…
Bringing up CEOs and shareholders is (1) special pleading and (2) confused. I say this because obscene compensation for CEOs is usually at the expense of the shareholders. You didn’t imagine this money was coming from the government, did you?
I think I was fairly clear about where that money is coming from: the workers responsible for the productivity/profitability gains. They got none of those gains over the past 8 years.
I think it is fair to say, though, that transfering cash in the form of credits to people that aren’t employing anyone else or providing high value services is a different kind of taxation.
Well, if you are being very simplistic about it, as you are, you could say that. But what of the small business owner of say, a grocery store? Think he doesn’t “benefit” from the food stamp program? How about the wholesaler who stocks the store, the food companies the wholesaler buys from, the trucking company that moves the food to the store? What of the owner of any small business who would see his customer base shrink by 40% (using the Republican funny number here) if all the “transfer in the form of cash” to people who are being underpaid wasn’t being done and they no longer had the money for anything other than the bare essential goods and services, or not even that? Businesses that sell luxury goods would probably still do ok, but pretty much everyone else would be screwed if their customer base suddenly dropped by 40%, or even by 25%.
I’m shocked in that I agree with you on this point – this is an inefficient way to do things. So raise wages. Otherwise, learn to live with “wealth transfer taxes” or say goodbye to the capitalist economy, because it will no longer function.
Even if you believe in the fairy tale of the ‘free market’, it is still fucked up. When the labor unions are busted, and businesses grow so large and consolidated through mergers that there is no real competition, but de facto monopoly, the power balance that is supposed to exist in the ‘free market model’ between business, labor and the consumer in order to have ‘fair’ commerce is thrown out of whack. Since neither labor nor consumer are strong enough to have any effect upon the decisions of business, business will naturally make decisions that benefit them, without the pressure that labor and consumer are supposed to exert upon business to insure fair commerce where everyone benefits.
When prices and the cost of living rises annually, and the real (in terms of buying power) wages of working people go downward annually (which they have for the past 8 years), this is tantamount to a theft of labor. If you get paid less and less (in terms of real purchasing power) every year for the same amount of work, your work is being stolen from you. If you work all day for someone and they say, “Here’s a quarter!” and then claims to have paid you, that is not pay, that is theft. Even if the person you work for says, “You’re lucky to get a quarter – José over here will do it for a dime!” and then accuses you of “not wanting to work.” But the kicker is this, which business has been too short-sighted to see: if people don’t have decent wages, they cannot spend money. And this is exactly what happened with the economic meltdown. So paying a living wage is actually an investment in your own company.
And poor people still pay sales taxes. Federal income tax is not the only indicator of where our money goes. But it sure is a great fear tactic to bludgeon people with.
How do you raise wages without simulateously raising the cost of living?
well, just as a “fer example”, by reducing profits.
People will not suddenly stop producing if they are not allowed unlimited profits.
The more money the middle and low-income folks have to spend, the more they will actually pump it directly into the economy, unlike the wealthy, who do not need to buy much more than they already have. We have seen what happens to the economy when the little guy stops spending.
Ahh… Surely the last several months’ experience of the financial markets is sufficient evidence that “highest earners” is not synonymous with “most productive people”?
BTW, households earning $250K or more a year are a whopping 2% of all households; even those earning $100K or more only come to 20%. And duh, yeah, that’s the top 2 or 20%. So what is this mathematical reverse-alchemy that transforms these folks to “middle-income” or “middle-class” in right-wing rhetoric?
(More BTW: Jennifer rocks, rules and wins.)
So since when have we had an implementation of The Truth that actually read other people’s comments and, at least to the level possible of the right wing, engaged people here in debate instead of just talking past them with stale talking points and copypasta?
Truthie’s gonna get tired moving all those goal-posts if Jennifer keeps scoring trys of its sorry ass.
@Simba – a couple of weeks now. It still moves goalposts, though.
How do you raise wages without simulateously raising the cost of living?
Well, ckc (not kc) has already done a good job of knocking this one down.
Once upon a time, a 5% rate of return was considered to be reasonable; 10% was considered excellent. Over the past 25 years though, investors have been demanding 15% or 20%. That money, also, has to come from somewhere, and the double-edged sword is you can typically only get those types of returns by going overseas for production. Essentially what they’ve done is strip-mined the economy, by funnelling more and more of business profits into dividends and CEO salaries and bonuses while employee wages remained static or the jobs went elsewhere. Now, we can talk all we like about “emerging markets” but the fact remains that the workers in China or India making $2 an hour may be doing great by the historical standards in those countries, but how many TVs and refrigerators can people making those types of wages afford to buy? You have to go a long way in “emerging markets” to get to the point where you have 150 million people wealthy enough to buy cars, TVs, home appliances, etc. I guess a global marketplace with unfettered restrictions is all fine and good if you don’t mind living like the typical Chinese peasant in a mud hut with an open fire for cooking, or if you don’t mind poison pet (and human) food, lead paint on baby toys, etc. It provides a good return on investment for the few people at the very top, but screws the rest of us.
But Alicia hit on something that is one of the hoariest of GOP myths when she says: People will not suddenly stop producing if they are not allowed unlimited profits. How many times have we heard over the years that “raising taxes discourages productivity/investment/etc.”? I say “hoariest” because it is utterly nonsensical and flies in the face of the most basic human nature. Sure, there is a point of diminishing returns with higher taxation, but you don’t hit it by raising taxes a measly 3%. And that threshold of when it’s just not worth the extra effort is going to be different for different people. But I guarantee you that if you go to anyone earning the median income in this country and say, “If you do x and y you’ll earn $250K, but you’ll pay 3% more in taxes than you do now,” they aren’t going to say, “oh, in that case, nevermind. I’d rather make $50K a year and keep paying $15,000 of it in taxes than make $250K and pay $90,000 in taxes…that will only leave me with $125,000 more than I’m making now. It’s just not worth it.” Seriously, that’s one of the dumbest lies they’ve managed to get people to swallow, over and over again, for all these years. You’d think people could figure this out by asking themselves what they would do given the chance to be in that higher tax bracket…would it just not be “worth it” to them? Of course not.
What role does the government play in determining profit?
What role does the government play in determining cost of living?
(get a brain)
How do you raise wages without simulateously raising the cost of living?
Let me address another component of this, one that also falls under the category of hoary GOP myth: this idea that raising wages will automatically cause the price of living to rise. As we’ve already pointed out, that’s not necessarily true because it may instead cause profits to fall somewhat. But there’s another reason why it’s not a given: let’s say that tomorrow, the minimum wage is raised to $9 per hour. As a result, McDonald’s finds that their payroll costs increase by 20%. Now, McDonald’s can address this in several different ways: they can cut dividends, they can raise prices, or they can cut jobs – or they might do a combination of all three. Usually, raising prices is the least attractive option, because you can’t generate profit if you lose customer base. So let’s say they decide to make up for all the shortfall by cutting jobs. Now, that sucks for the people who used to work at McDonald’s – they have to go find another job. But the people who still work there? They have 20% more money to spend, and it will get spent somewhere, which will create other jobs. Now, suppose McDonald’s decides that, instead of immediately cutting all those jobs, they’re going to raise the price of a Big Mac Meal from $6 to $7. There may be some customers who wanted that Big Mac Meal when it was $6 but think $7 is too much, and they stop buying Big Mac meals. This means that maybe some employees get laid off due to business downturn, but probably not as many as in the first example. But the people who are now electing not to buy Big Mac meals have $6 more in their pockets for every Big Mac Meal they forego, and that money is going to get spent somewhere, and the people still working at McDonald’s have extra money to spend that will get spent somewhere, which will create other jobs.
Now, consider the third option: McDonald’s elects to make up the extra payroll expense by cutting dividends. Several possible impacts can occur here: the stock price may suffer, temporarily; there may be some people such as retirees who count on those dividends for income who will find themselves with less money to spend, at least temporarily, but they may see other stocks in their portfolio deliver better returns due to the extra money the McDonald’s employees now have to spend. Then there are the people who own stock who already have more money than they can ever spend, and for them, they’ll just, at least temporarily, earn a little less extra money they will never be able to spend – while at the same time, they’ll realize more gains on other stocks due to the increased spending by those McDonald’s employees.
It’s not as simple as just “cost of living will increase”, but then again, really nothing in the economy is ever as simple as Republican talking points make it out to be.
The specter of Obama imposing ever larger taxes is actually affecting their investment decisions
I’m sure their investment decisions are being affected right now, but I doubt it’s because of some nebulous “specter” of higher taxes which may or may not be enacted at some point in the future after a lengthy period of debate and unforeseeable modifications instead of the fact that we’re in a down turn and no one knows how long or how bad it’s going to be. It’s more likely their accounts receivable are in arrears, orders are slowing down, credit has tightened, etc.
That is, people are not “deciding” how much money to make, as your reductio ad absurdum shows.
Now, that’s just pitiful, to try to take something that far out of context. Anyone with nominal reading ability would have no problem with discerning that my comment was an illustration of how absurd the Republican argument that higher taxation discourages productivity is. Don’t pretend it was anything else.
Let’s get specific here Truth. What is your friend’s “small but capital intensive business” and what specific decisions have been made to decrease economic activity because of the threat of higher taxes or lawsuits? Because in my experience, Alicia is absolutely correct. I have never known any small businessperson to purposely make less money because they was afraid of paying taxes or getting sued. As I said, be specific; apocryphal stories don’t count
were afraid; sorry, forgot to change verb with pronoun.
Jennifer, the Pusanweb forum moderators apparently overslept this morning; but my comment quoting your piece finally is up. If you want to see it, go to pusanweb.com, click on Forums, click on Koreabridge Forums Here, click on Open Forum, look for the thread titled Wassup! – Eight Years Later (it should still be near the top of the page), and look for the most recent post(s). Thanks again.
Two historical points in re the current discussion: first, the advocates for the rich have since time immemorial been trotting out “economists” who gravely intone that raising the minimum wage by “x” amount will result in “y” number of lost jobs. But time after time, few if any jobs have been lost due to minimum wage increases.
Second, executive salaries first started losing touch with worker wages during or shortly after WWII, when the top-tier marginal tax rate approached 100%. The marginal rates stayed fairly high through the 70’s; and this was always the justification for high executive salaries . Yet even after Reagan finally slashed the highest marginal rates (meanwhile dramatically increasing FICA), executive salaries did not come down. In fact, quite the opposite occurred; and the great corporate pig-out began.
The Truth – if you think your friend’s reluctance to invest has more to do with Barack Obama’s election than it does the current financial meltdown, I’m guessing you haven’t asked her why she’s considering scaling back. I’d think that getting financing would be a bigger issue for her than a 3% tax increase.
Though now that I think about it, she may be contemplating the fact that medicine may not be a privatized industry for much longer. I suppose that would be a “hostile” business environment for that one sector of the economy, but again, it’s not an issue of higher taxes.
Yet even after Reagan finally slashed the highest marginal rates (meanwhile dramatically increasing FICA), executive salaries did not come down. In fact, quite the opposite occurred; and the great corporate pig-out began.
Yes. And it’s just a coincidence that this occured at the same time that Reagan was helping American business bust up the unions.
Truth,
Once again your republican talking points have let you down. I’m not an academic. I’ve been a licensed, self-employed building contractor for almost 30 years.
And you weren’t at all specific about your friend. Medical professionals are a good example. Your friend can either stay in private practice, where the rewards are greater, and of course so are the risks, or she can take a more risk-averse path, and make less money, in which case a less risk averse individual person will open a private practice. That’s textbook capitalism. The fact that it is a burden that your friend is not allowed to externalize her costs is a reality, not an injustice.
BTW, since you sneeringly called me an academic, what is your business experience Truth? More specifically, how many payrolls have you met?
Shorter Truth: “I’ve got a friend who is a dentist that doesn’t like paying professional liability insurance or payroll taxes for her employees”
How did a nice Jewish girl get the name Regan? Is this the result of meeting a goyish guy at an O’Reilly talking tour?
Honus, my friend is in the medical profession. She has to buy extremely expensive equipment, hire extremely expensive associates, and protect herself against some pretty hefty liability concerns. She is seriously re-calibrating her future course of action against a suddenly hostile business environment.
People aren’t going to get sick anymore? That’s awesome. Electing Obama is already paying dividends.
I wonder how many payrolls President McCain “made” before his glorious victory on Nov. 4. Was it a million, or a bazillion?
What i find so funny about academic conservatism is that in the neo classical economic model, profits for firms are at zero in the long run. Equilibrium is as close to zero as possible. Profits and Expenses match. People have always understood that this did not mean actual zero but a lowish rate of return. And let me explain this a bit the zero profits reading tells you that the economy is operating at maximum efficency ie the most economic activity possible is being generated, (income, rent, profits)
So the massive expansion of the total share of national wealth going to profits has actually been a signal that something wasn’t right. And damn was is ever not right, most of the profit surge was from the fianacial sector and we now know that those profits were short term smack based on fraud.
There’s no free lunch applies to capital as much as it does to labour; economic ideas that skirt this idea (supply side baloney) are conning you.
And don’t get me started on the lies of the think tanks on taxation in America. The bottom line is that taxes are going to high for everyone in America for at least 20 years just to make sure the US doesn’t go bust. And that is with reductions in the Pentagon budget, Medicade cuts and a little trimming of the SS benefits. Time to pay the Chinese.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I beleive that’s a good ol’ San Francisco Mission-area mural in the background of the latest awesome graphic.
Takes me back. I miss SF.
I do her. But only gagged.
You academics and government employees may not understand this, but if you’ve had to make a payroll you would.
Hey Truth, these comments aren’t closed. Don’t be the coward you accuse DrDick of being. Tell me how many payrolls you’ve met. I’ve never worked for the government, I’m not an academic and I’ve covered payrolls for probably longer than you’ve been alive. So what are your props? It’s a simple question, that you brought up- how many payrolls have you met?
Conservative stupidity is so easy to debunk. They’re all phonies.
sorry, should read this way:
Truth said “You academics and government employees may not understand this, but if you’ve had to make a payroll you would.”
Hey Truth, these comments aren’t closed. Don’t be the coward you accuse DrDick of being. Tell me how many payrolls you’ve met. I’ve never worked for the government, I’m not an academic and I’ve covered payrolls for probably longer than you’ve been alive. So what are your props? It’s a simple question, that you brought up- how many payrolls have you met?
Conservative stupidity is so easy to debunk. They’re all phonies.
Is any
In fact, is the big dummy the smart guy still there?
… and the hits just keep on coming more than four years later
Published Friday, August 3, 2012
To the Editor:
I have read some really nutty opinions regarding Barack Obama’s tenures as POTUS but XXXXX XXXX’s latest over-the-top kvelling takes the cake, and I am not even sure why his idealism ungrounded in reality and, more importantly, the founding principles of the United States even warranted publication. We all have our personal opinions regarding Obama – many o fthem are deeply felt on both sides of the aisle. But it is those that are based on facts, statements, policies, and actions(or inaction) that should form the basis of an educated opinion worth sharing with others. XXXX’s pronouncements of what motivates Obama to usurp the Constitution and act alone in order to pursue his agenda is simply silly. He watched the Obamas on television and now knows “the man” to the point of doubting that Obama “feels any real allegiance to race or to party.” Really?! Wheather you support Obama’s agenda or not, most agree that he will go down in history as the most divisive, partisan president in the history of the U.S.
XXXX also displays his own ignorance regarding the Constitution that establishes three branches of government. It does not provide for the POTUS to “do things alone” without checks and balances. Nor does this precious document advise that the POTUS should be “completely missing” when slamming through the takelover of one- sixth of the U.S. economy using a procedural technicality. The Democrats paid the price in 2010 for Obama’s disregard for the rule of law and will of the people. XXXX may be enamored by a POTUS who has ignored the basic principles of government, does not believe in America’s exceptionalism and wants to tax to death the portion of society that creates jobs and grows the economy in the “hope” of achievinig some Orwellian sense of equality. And like his hypocritical idol who fundraises, plays golf, and lives the high life(did XXXX notice Michelle’s $6800 top that she wore to the Olympics?) while his “lieutenants” do the dirty work, XXXX supports failed policies that are devastating the country and its citizens. But I’m guessing that the majority of Americans are now more grounded in reality and will vote Obama out in 2012. XXXX dig get one thing right – “I don’t tinik we have had a president in our lifetime like him.” God willing, we never will again due to an informed and wise electorate.
Lauri Regan
HUGE DOMAINS DOT COM