Yeah, I went there. Again.
Well folks, I threatened said that I might have more to say about the presidential race before it’s over, and sure enough there’s some more I want to bring up for those of you who don’t follow the political news. Don’t worry, I’ll show you some of the humorous side of it all at the end.
Where to start? Last time I talked about Obama’s desire to be very generous with other people’s money, but there’s so much more to say about the man: his willingness to participate in credit card fraud to pad his campaign coffers, his attempts to use the power of the law to silence those who question his activities, his involvement with people who think nothing of killing cops (or millions who refuse to be “reeducated” after the revolution). Indeed, Little Barry seems a veritable renaissance man of political corruption.
But let’s not go into all that. There are two issues that I think take the cake here, and I’ll stick to those this time around.
First, the economy. More specifically, how Obama’s “spread the wealth around” policies will affect it. Read “Barstool Economics” for a nice, quick layman’s primer on how our tax system works, and how soaking and punishing the rich can come back to bite you. Did you know that when polled about how much the rich pay in taxes and how much they thought the rich should be paying, the answers many gave to both questions were far below what the rich are actually paying already?
As for how much Obama himself knows - he’s talked about giving 95% percent of America a federal income tax break, which is going to be rather tricky to pull off since only about 70% are paying federal income taxes in the first place. Forget whether the man is qualified to run the country; with math skills like that, I’m wondering if he’s qualified to run a cash register. Via some Rush Limbaugh transcripts (which I won’t bother with links to because I believe they’ll expire soon anyway) I learn that businesses are already going into survival mode - making layoffs and such - just based on the possibility of an Obama win. Yes, the man who’s supposed to heal the land and cure our ills is actually hurting us just by coming near the White House with his talk of spreading other people’s wealth around. The markets are terrified of this guy.
What’s even better, however, is what his running mate Joe Biden said back on the 19th. Biden is apparently the kind of guy who just can’t keep his mouth shut when he knows something you don’t, and not long after a foreign policy briefing to the POTUS and VP candidates he guaranteed the public that America’s enemies would create a major international crisis within a few months of Obama becoming president:
So… Yeah. Obama’s own VP candidate, shortly after receiving some classified information regarding foreign policy, just repeatedly swore to us that if we elect Obama the bad guys are going to come and @#$% with us in a big way almost immediately. Sort of makes you wonder exactly what form such a crisis will take. Sort of makes me wonder why we need to elect them at all if it’s just going to make this country a lightning rod for trouble.
I’m not a big fan of McCain, and I have my doubts that he’ll leave America any better off than before. But it’s looking more and more like an Obama presidency would be nothing less than a gut-shot to this country.
Still, things are looking up. Much of Obama’s popularity has come from the mainstream press covering for him, but this is finally starting to catch up to them. Not only are they suffering major backlash from the public over destroying Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher’s life, but they’re starting to fracture from within as the honest journalists among them begin to break ranks and call their fellows out.
Moreover, the polls have shifted greatly in McCain’s favor. Even assuming the polls were accurate to begin with - some suspect they were weighted in Obama’s favor to influence voters and due to the Bradley Effect - McCain has come from behind and is now running neck-and-neck. If this continues McCain will be ahead before long. Obama doesn’t seem to handle pressure or criticism well, so I’m expecting a full-blown Messiah Meltdown if McCain gets a clear lead.
And the fact that I’m sharing the mental image of Obama losing it means that we’ve arrived at the “humorous side” portion of this post that I promised you at the top. I’ll keep this short but sweet.
First off, some light reading. Biden follows up on his crisis prediction, and scandal follows Sarah Palin everywhere she goes. Meanwhile, the brutally even-handed Iowahawk launches the counter to the “I Am Joe” movement that he himself started. Neither Jim Treacher nor David Burge will ever read this backwater little blog, but I’ll throw out a “keep up the good work, gents” on principle anyway.
Next, this is for all of you who ever tried that divine combination of chocolate and peanut butter and said, “you know what else would go great together? Political debate and lightsaber duels.” The farce is strong with this one:
And finally, I finish this with a message of hope and inspiration. Never forget the power of one person - or more specifically, one person’s apathy and laziness - to change the world. I will, of course, be hunted down and killed for this:
P.S. - If you’ve got some political funny to add to the pot, please leave a reply. Said reply feature is there for a reason, after all.
October 25th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Do you actually believe the stuff you’re saying? I mean, do you really think that Obama and liberals in general want to kill cops and capitalists, rather than a few nutjobs back in the 60s?
I’ve tried to understand what exactly the right thinks they’re talking about when they say “liberal” like it’s a swear word. Because I can tell you with absolute honesty that a hell of a lot of liberals DO think the right wants to kill them - actually kill them, with lynchings and stonings and being-dragged-behind-trucks and bombing their clinics. And they don’t think it’s just a few isolated nutjobs. Maybe they’re completely wrong, but that’s what they actually think.
Do you really think the liberals are going to come and shoot you in the night, or are you just afraid that they’ll raise your taxes? What do you mean when you say that someone is “the most liberal guy ever!!!”
October 26th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
If you’re going to take issue with what I said, please restrict yourself to what I actually said. I didn’t call Obama “the most liberal guy ever,” and I’m not even speaking of liberals in general. I’m talking about Obama, and the people directly associated with him. And some of those people DID, in fact, kill cops and wanted to “eliminate” any capitalists who couldn’t be “reeducated.” Follow the links I gave.
As for people on the right engaging in lynchings and such, what does that have to do with my position? I’m a capitalist, which means I believe in keeping my hands to myself as long as others do the same. If you know anyone who goes around bombing clinics and so forth, he’s not my kind of people and he doesn’t represent me at all.
And as for whether I’m afraid the liberals will shoot me in the night or simply raise my taxes, let me ask you - why should a peaceful private citizen have to be afraid of either one? I simply want others - the government included - to leave my person and my property alone. As long as I’m not threatening or harming anyone, how is that a problem?
October 26th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Oh, and you wondered why people treat “liberal” like it’s a dirty word. The reason is that what liberals want to be “liberal” WITH is other people’s property and other people’s lives. They want to be generous with other people’s time and money.
Is it really so puzzling that their victims would take offense to that?
October 26th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
What I was trying to explain was as a liberal, I hear things you’re not saying. You’re not directly threatening me, but I feel threatened anyway, and the threats that I hear that you’re not saying make it very difficult for me to engage with you to discuss what you actually are saying.
I assume that as a conservative, you hear things that I’m not saying, and I’d like to know what those things are. (If you identify as strong libertarian rather than conservative, then I have a better understanding of your position and you don’t have to explain. I like libertarians. I don’t always agree with them on everything, but it’s a position I can respect. Conservatives baffle me.)
Yes, I know perfectly well that Obama has met and had vague associations with someone who was, at one point in time, a dangerous criminal and terrorist. I wouldn’t pretend otherwise. However, I don’t personally feel that guilt by association is terribly relevant, so I don’t have any urge to go around digging up every person McCain’s ever had dealings with who is a dangerous war criminal or the like. I care about what McCain/Palin actually believe and plan, not whether they invited a slimeball to a house party once. I don’t think that Obama actually endorses bombing the government. And despite McCain/Palin stating that the government and people who live in NYC are not “real Americans”, I don’t think they actually endorse bombing them either.
As for being liberal with other people’s time and money - liberals are also doing it FOR other people’s time and money. Us bleeding-heart tree-huggers aren’t usually the suffering poor whose needs we wail and moan about. I’d personally rather pay higher taxes so that others could have roads and medical care and schools, and yes, I can prove that. Caring strongly about less fortunate people is usually the key principle that makes a policy “liberal”, or so it seems from my perspective. Which is why it’s so baffling to see people opposed to that, and why I’m sure others must be seeing something that isn’t being said.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Okay, there’s so much to respond to here that I could make entire blog posts covering it all, and I’m starting to worry how many characters my blog comments are limited to. So for now I’m going to set aside the part about why people oppose the welfare state. There is a reason and I’ll tackle that a bit later, perhaps even in its own post, but for right now let me just handle the rest…
First, I’m not trying to hear anything you’re not saying. I don’t like playing that game. I say what I mean, and I want you to say what you mean. What you say, and what logically follows from what you say, are what I want to work with. If I have to try and read your mind to figure out what you mean because you won’t just say it, something’s wrong.
Second, I don’t consider myself a conservative or a liberal. I identify myself as a laissez faire capitalist, and the fundamental rule of capitalism is that, emergencies aside, the use of aggressive force is banned. Capitalists believe in the use of force only in retaliation against aggressors or in life-or-death emergencies. In other words, I believe in keeping my hands to myself as long as others do the same.
Consequently, I am not threatening you in ANY way - direct or indirect, explicit or implicit - unless you threaten me first. If you’re not going to threaten me first, then you’re safe from me and any fear you still have of me is baseless and irrational. So relax.
Third, Obama’s association with Ayers was far from “vague.” As an adult, he worked with the guy and funded his education program. This is not just “guilt by association.” Obama may not have been in the Weather Underground with Ayers, but he helped Ayers to try and indoctrinate children in Ayers’ political ideology.
Here’s an article discussing this:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWI0MjY3NzMyODgxZGM2ZjUwNTE1MmEzOGRiZmFkNWE=
And I’ll close with a quote from that article:
“Nor does Ayers see his education work as a repudiation of his early radicalism. On the contrary, Ayers sees his education work as carrying on his radicalism in a new guise. The point of Ayers’ education theory is that the United States is a fundamentally racist and oppressive nation. Students, Ayers believes, ought to be encouraged to resist this oppression. Obama was funding Ayers’ “small schools” project, built around this philosophy. Ayers’ radicalism isn’t something in the past. It’s something to which Obama gave moral and financial support as an adult. So when Shane says that Obama has never expressed sympathy for Ayers’ radicalism, he’s flat wrong. Obama’s funded it.
Obama was perfectly aware of Ayers’ radical views, since he read and publically endorsed, without qualification, Ayers’ book on juvenile crime.”