Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Wekend +1 Roundup

Guns, Guns, and More Guns - Today's reason why The Marxist will destroy freedom has been scanned from American Hunter's election cover. Click to enlarge. And now, on to the rest:


Joe and The Marxist
- I'll be brief because it's already been talked to death. It doesn't matter about Joe. He's an average person who asked a question. And the answer The Marxist (Obama) gave him is the reason I needed to be able to vote for McCain:

"When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Sounds familiar to me. This is where I've heard that kind of crap before.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." - Karl Marx

Of course, as there are liberals who don't like the fact he got the answer from The Marxist, they seek to discredit him. Oh well, at least he gets 15 minutes and gives McCain some ammo that might help.


Colin Powell and the GOP - I respect General Powell for his service and for his opinions, even when I disagree. So I'm not going to condemn him for endorsing The Marxist. After all, if this is his political leanings, so be it. Is there a racial component to his choice. He denies it, and I question that. I'm not so ready to say that race was his primary motivation, but to absolutely discount it is disingenuous. But the timing couldn't be better for The Marxist, with only two weeks to go, which is suspicious. In addition, the word Monday was that Powell will be advising The Marxist if and when he takes office. That's also suspicious and comforting as well. As I said, I respect the general, and hopefully he'll help The Marxist have some sanity in foreign policy and avoid making a stupid rookie mistake, or even worse, going Carter. As for the economy, though, we're still up shit creek.

But the Powell defection is simply a part of the disintegration of the GOP I'd be upset, except that the Republican Party has seriously lost its way. When both conservative and liberal Republicans are breaking away, you've simply lost focus.


Welfare Calculator
- Found this on The Marxist's site. It's a calculator for his tax refund. The only problem I see is that when I run the numbers, I get a tax break of $500. Not bad. The only problem is that my income is low enough that I already don't pay taxes. So either I don't get shit, or, in a true example of wealth redistribution, I get me a vote-buying government welfare check. You be the judge on that one.

Sarah on SNL - Finally, since I missed it airing, here it is:

42 comments:

Toad734 said...

Noooo! Not registration and licensing!!! they do that with cars and it's so unconstitutional!!!

Bottom line is that if you are a gun nut who thinks 14 year olds should be able to buy AK-47s at Village Pantry, you are voting for the crazy reich wing any way and you would probably rather have a black guy in your cross hairs before you would have him on your ballot.

I think you should stick with the socialist terrorist thing because no one cares about this shit right now.

Ive got a good one; talk about how good McCain and Palin would be for the economy and how much they know about it.

Toad734 said...

And how come on Obamas website it says ill get over a $1000 tax refund and yours only says $250? I think something is fishy here and perhaps you are looking at the tax cuts rich CEOs from Exxon and AIG would get under McCain but you are missing three zeros.

Patrick M said...

Bottom line is that if you are a gun nut who thinks 14 year olds should be able to buy AK-47s at Village Pantry....

And you wonder why I mock you?

...talk about how good McCain... would be for the economy...

I think I have. But too much of that might scare off some McCain voters. :)

As for the calculator, it said $500. And my numbers are 20k, head of household and 2 dependents. Run them and you'll see.

Jennifer said...

I officially get 1800 back.....still doesn't mean there is a chance in hell of me voting for Obama.

["When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Sounds familiar to me. This is where I've heard that kind of crap before.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." - Karl Marx ]

Socialism 101

Dee said...

I too missed seeing Sarah Palin on SNL, but when I found the videos of it, I thought she did great. Did you see that SNL had the most viewers in 14 years because of having her on?

Patrick M said...

Jennifer: Socialism 101

Yep.

Dee: Maybe Sarah can host the show if McCain donks out. Then I might get back to watching it.

BTW, where do you think I found the clip? Probably the same place I'm going to go shortly to download a certain radio show I forgot about. Of course, I had to go get some tires, so I have a reason.

Toad734 said...

How is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." anything even close to "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

They aren't even remotely related.

As opposed to the Republican platform: The richer the rich get, the lower their taxes should be and the higher the taxes on the middle class and poor should be.

I think I know which one I prefer.

Obob said...

Although I was already voting for McCain, the "spread the wealth" cemented it. This is Marxism. No way to debate it.
As for gun control, Obama once said he was for common sense. But it leaves to wonder, a leftist like himself? A person who despises free will? A reason for the removal of the second allows more eroding of our civil rights. Something he claims to stand for. But stronger odds of the tyrannical Fairness Doctrine and then further gun control ... see what he can do to the 3rd.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Hmm. This is a tough one. How can you cut taxes for people who pay no income taxes? Magic? Welfare? Or maybe -- just maybe -- people who pay no income taxes pay some other kind of tax.

I know, I know: how could there be any sort of tax other than the (federal) income tax? I have heard that in distant lands there are strange, exotic taxes, like the "sales tax", the "property tax", "state and local income taxes", the "capital gains tax", "use taxes", "permit fees", other fees, the "severance tax", the "occupational privilege tax", the "estate tax", the "gift tax", the "federal excise tax", and even the fantastically named "generation skipping transfer tax". But surely we have no such outlandish customs here!

We who live in a country that has only one sort of tax, the federal income tax, can only stare in wonder at those benighted countries where people actually pay taxes whenever they buy a shovel or realize capital gains.

Apparently, you just can't say it too often: just because someone doesn't pay federal income taxes does not mean she/he doesn't pay taxes at all. If the number of people who paid no federal income tax rose above 50%, or even 99%, that would not mean that the majority of Americans were not paying taxes, period.

And Obob, here is the complete quote:

"It was in his encounter with Mr. Wurzelbacher that Mr. Obama uttered the phrase that Mr. McCain now derides at nearly every rally: “spread the wealth around.”

A transcript of the encounter from ABC News indicates that Mr. Obama used the phrase after Mr. Wurzelbacher wondered if Mr. Obama might support a flat tax. Mr. Obama said he did not because he did not think it was fair for someone as well-off as himself to pay the same tax rate as a waitress.

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going to be good for everybody,” Mr. Obama said, according to the transcript, adding that plumbers are better off when there are more customers who can afford to hire them. “And right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody, and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” Mr. Obama said."


That is NOT talking about redistribution of wealth. But maybe it's too nuanced for you sound-bite folks who take a comment out of context and then run with it--off a cliff.

Myself said...

The endorsement by Colin Powell (The man named after a rectem) was not a surprise to anyone. It was a foregone conclusion, with the timing decided when Obama needed something to change the subject. He was getting beat up by Joe the plumber and called Colin Powell who had been waiting in the wings to be summoned. No surprise, and does not cover Powell in glory for his claim to have thought about this long and hard. If he thought about it long and hard, it was to come up with some plausible excuse why he could stab his 'friend' in the back.
But Blacks always flock to each other.

Toad734 said...

Obob: Erosion of civil rights? Is that supposed to be a joke? If you are all about civil rights you should be standing in front of the White House with a picket sign right now.

Just because we don't want 12 year olds to get military weapons with armor piercing bullets doesn't mean we are going to repeal the 2nd Amendment. That is common sense.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Myself said...

"The endorsement by Colin Powell (The man named after a rectem)

colon, rectum.

But that's not your tribe's strong point anyway.


"But Blacks always flock to each other."

How often have white people "flocked" to white men for president?


PS. "myself," you're "flocking" funny.

Z-man said...

So is Condi Rice going to go the Powell way?

Myself said...

Perhaps the Good general should advise Obama for the U.S. to pull out of Chicago!

Body count in the last six months:
292 killed (murdered) in Chicago
221 killed in Iraq
Chicago - who runs it?

Senators: Barack Obama and Dick Durbin
Representative: Jesse Jackson Jr.
Illinois Governor: Rod Blogojevich
Illinois House leader: Mike Madigan
Illinois Attorney General: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike)
Chicago Mayor: Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley)

Mary Mary Quite Contrary said...

Patrick, you said "I respect General Powell for his service and for his opinions, even when I disagree. So I'm not going to condemn him for endorsing The Marxist. After all, if this is his political leanings, so be it. Is there a racial component to his choice. He denies it, and I question that."


Well why not? If you feel that it's un true then you should question it.
Respecting him has nothing to do with it and by the way, if you feel that he is lying, than why respect him?

The lefties sure didn't respect him when they thought he was lying!
And I don't now.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

In 2006, which is the most recent year for which I can get complete data on, Chicago ranked 20th among the states with a murder rate of 16.4 per 100,000.

Detroit ranked #1 with a rate of 47.3 per 100,000.

Washington, DC ranked #7 with a rate of 29.1 per 100,000.

Your point?

Senators don't run the police station.

Neither do Governors, House Leaders, Mayors, or Attorneys General.

The police run the station. Talk to them.

You might want to talk to the police in Detroit and DC before you head to Chicago, though.

Myself said...

Did Biden Endorse McCain?

Myself said...

Well do your research again Satyavati devi dasi

Or just put my post into Google, and you will see that it's correct.

Oct 19, 2008 ... Body count. In the last six months. Chicago - 292 killed (murdered) Iraq - 221 Chicago is a combat zone.


Thank you

Myself said...

You asked My point?

MY point is that there is MORE crime MURDER etc in Chicgo, Obama's home town that in Iraq, you could have figured that out

Satyavati devi dasi said...

There is also more crime in Washington, DC than in Iraq, and more than in Chicago to boot.

Talk to Bush about that.

Obob said...

shaw: In regards to spreading the wealth, certain phrases should not come out of a democrat nor a person who was influenced by a communist as a teenager. The concern it brings me is either he is blissfully unaware of what he says and thinks we are not that smart to catch it. Like the lipstick pig fracas. It may be something, but I have little trust in politicians and less of those from Chicago. Not to mention he is a white sox fan and they is stupid.
toad: rights can evaporate in subtle ways. The democrats allowed any rights you feel are gone to go. What rights should I protesting to return? Please do not take this as a condescending question, there is honest sincerity here.
I'll be back in a bit, Mr. Mom stuff.

Patrick M said...

Toad: The Marxist wants to "spread the wealth around" by taxing rich people (producers) and giving it to poor people (less productive) in either checks or programs. Marx wants to take from the highest producers and give it to those who aren't producing enough. What don't you get.

And to correct the record, the GOP supports tax cuts for everybody. Now I just have to push them to the FairTax.

Obob: Amen to that.

Shaw: I have heard that in distant lands there are strange, exotic taxes, like the "sales tax", the "property tax", "state and local income taxes"

You want the federal government to give back the state and local taxes? So the shrinking number of taxpayers are now subsidizing the states too?

just because someone doesn't pay federal income taxes does not mean she/he doesn't pay taxes at all.

You forgot all about the embedded taxes. Which makes me ask: When are you ready to hop on board the FairTax?

Myself: (The man named after a rectem)

We don't rip on General Powell. He served this country well, despite his political leanings. Questions about his motive and his place in The Marxist's administration, however, are fair game.

Z-man: guess she has to. She does happen to be black after all.

Mary: I still respect him, despite his playing of politics. I even respect John Kerry's service, because he did go to war. What he did 10 seconds after getting back to the world was vile and unconscionable, but I have no standing on which to rip any service in war.

I suspect I'll get a chance to blast at him, though, as more info comes out and he goes from disingenuous to bullshitting us.

Saty, Myself: I already did those numbers. Here's the link if you want more on it. Maybe one or both of you will be enlightened more on this argument.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

And through September there have been 333 deaths in NYC for 2008.

Hillary's fault? I don't think so.

The point I'm making here is that Chicago is neither the most dangerous city in the country nor the least.

To use this as an excuse like this borders on ridiculous.

Myself said...

I guess you just don't get it ...do you!

Satyavati devi dasi said...

No, I don't get it.

Chicago has more crime than Iraq.

DC, Detroit, Newark, and NY have more crime than Chicago. (And thus, more crime than Iraq.)

So?

Chicago's crime rate is somehow more significant than that of cities that have even higher crime rates?

What exactly are you getting at?

Patrick M said...

My: Let me help you. Satyavati is almost as smart as I am and will ague you into dodecahedrons if you don't head her off at the pass.

Saty: The number of deaths is only a small part of the argument. The problem with Chicago is that it has high taxes, more deaths in a period than Iraq, and is wholly run by a pretty damned corrupt Democrat machine. And this is the machine that brought The Marxist to the national stage.

At least I think that's where Myself is going here.

Related post: Pasadena Closet Conservative posted this on poor people and their tendency to vote Democrat. It's an interesting read and sort of relates.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

I SO can tell you have a crush on me, Patrick.

First I stopped being a wingbat and now I'm almost as smart as you?!!

I'm totally blushing.

Myself said...

Well I guess YOU really don't get it at all.
The statement was just a comparison.
Communists do not have a sense of reality

Patrick M said...

My: Communists do not have a sense of reality

Of course they do. That their philosophy is wrong and makes some incorrect assumptions on human behavior that invalidate it does not mean it can't be studied to figure out how to better serve a free market system. It's in contrasting a government-centered society with a free one that we learn more about why conservatism works.

Of course, as there are no communists commenting here (One confirmed socialist and a couple of stock liberals), this thankfully applies only to people not posting here.

Toad734 said...

Obob:

How about the right not to be detained without charges, the right to not have your phones wiretaped without a judges approval, the deminishing rights of a girl you may get pregnant, your right to protest the government, your right to not be tortured, to name a few.

Toad734 said...

Who the hell ever said crime in Chicago was worse than crime in Baghdad?? How about this. Ill stay here in Chicago for 6 months, and you guys go to Iraq for 6 months and we will see who still has all their limbs in April. Ill take Chicago any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Don't mistake troop deaths in Baghdad with deaths or murders in Baghdad. Although only 4000 troops have died there over 80,000 people have been killed since the invasion. It would take 90 years for Chicago to come up with that many murders.

Toad734 said...

Patrick:

You are kidding yourself if you think McCain wont raise taxes; especially after he invades Iran.

And it isn't like Obama is really raising taxes to some unheard of rate, he's repealing tax cuts for the wealthy, that's all. The economy worked a lot better when the rich were paying 3% more in taxes. 3% on 250,000 per year isn't even close to enough money to hire someone even for minimum wage. I would rather go back to the tax rates of the prosperous 90s. And the only checks Obama plans on handing out to people who don't work, are the same checks McCain wants to hand out as well and those are Child Tax Credits. That's it! The rest will go to evil socialist things like Schools and healthcare.

Why are you still under the impression that:
A. You have to fight for the powerless, helpless, rich and that they are incapable of fighting their own battles?

B. These same rich people you are fighting for would do the same to you if your taxes were to increase

C. That you will ever earn over $250,000 per year.

D. That under Obamas plan you wouldn't actually be able to save more money in order to start a business which would get you a lot closer to starting your own business

Patrick M said...

You are kidding yourself if you think McCain wont raise taxes

Of course he might. George HW Bush did, and became a one-termer as a result. But I know The Marxist will. He's said he will. And he's targeting those people who provide the jobs and have the ability to pass those tax burdens onto us.

I don't fight for "the rich" or any one group at the expense of another. That's your tactic. McCain is promising tax cuts across the board. That's fair. Whether it goes through or not, I don't know.

I'm just waiting for the viable presidential candidate that throws behind the FairTax. As it is, I have a US rep to start bombarding with FairTax info to get him on board.

BTW, if you missed it, the FairTax IS a progressive tax. I don't have a problem with taxing the "rich" more, but using taxes to redistribute wealth (or spread it around) is where I have a problem.

Toad734 said...

AIG, Lemming Brothers, Ford, Paris Hilton, the Walton Family, Brody Jenner, etc. are not creating jobs, if anything they are eliminating them. Do you not own a TV or the capacity to read a news paper?

Obama is not raising taxes on you or the consumer. In fact, he is going to tax the businesses that ship jobs overseas. If it's job creation you are worried about then Obama is your candidate. People who are investing in alternative forms of energy will also see a tax break along with me who loves to buy the latest greatest pieces of technology. You want me spending money and I spend almost everything I make, it all goes back into the economy. Rich fucks spend very little of what they make.

The Fair Tax is only progressive in the sense that the dirt poor won't pay anything, after that its regressive.

Obob:

How, with a straight face, can you call a democrat someone who is against free will??

I think we all know that its the Republicans like Ted Stevens who want to further censor TV, Radio and INternet, its the republicans who want to say who you can sleep with and marry, it's the Republicans who are anti-choice, its religious conservatives who want to force children to have to pray in school and learn about Genesis instead of science and also keep me from drinking alcohol in dry counties, sundays, strip clubs, etc.

Freewill and republicans only go together when talking about letting corporations and CEOs run wild with no regulation.

Anonymous said...

The graduated income tax is here to stay and despite the latest GOP obfuscations and misrepresentations surrounding the absurd Joe the Plumber escapade that won't change.

Let's have a look-see at what the notorious Marxist Warren Buffett has to say:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html

Arthurstone said...

Oops.

I assume blame/responsibility regarding the Warren Buffett post.

Patrick M said...

The Fair Tax is only progressive in the sense that the dirt poor won't pay anything, after that its regressive. The Fair Tax is only progressive in the sense that the dirt poor won't pay anything, after that its regressive.

I'll forgive your inability to do math.

Arthur: Welcome. I think.

You could make the link clickable. I'll show you how if necessary. But on to the point (and a retread story).

Buffett gets those numbers because his secretary pays income tax. Much of Buffett's income gets taxed at the lower capital gains rate. And I'm sure there's some loopholes that he's found that he can exploit, because the tax system features high progressive rates and a bunch of asinine loopholes based on whoever last wrote them. If you cut the taxes and kill the loopholes, you have less bullshit involved.

Or better yet, there's always the FairTax.

Toad734 said...

Patrick:

Well it certainly isn't progressive.

Patrick M said...

Toad, the FairTax is absolutely progressive. After the necessities, it's absolutely based on how much you are able to pay. If all you can buy is secondhand stuff, or you buy the inexpensive, then your tax burden is low. If you buy a $5 million yacht, you're paying over a million in FairTax. As you spend more, you pay a higher percentage.

What it doesn't do is slap people with a high tax rate, then open an assload of loopholes to escape said taxes; it doesn't delineate between $249,999 and $250,0000 as being a completely differnt tax rate; it doesn't lend itself to manipulation by politicians who want to buy votes with this, which is something both McCain and The Marxist are doing.

Toad734 said...

A progressive tax is based on income not spending. Rich people could still shop at thrift stores, paying less in taxes and therefore its regressive. And poor people could still buy expensive cars, rims and bling they can't really afford and shouldn't buy and there you go, regressive again.

Toad734 said...

Again, when you refer to "The Marxist" I have to assume that you are either talking about Bush or Palin.

Those are they only two in politics today who have really practiced any sort of Socialism. Bush in taking ownership of banks and Palin in redistributing wealth or Oil Companies and handing out free $4200 checks to everyone in Alaska. So enough with the "Marxist" crap with Obama. Name one thing he has done which is "marxist".

Patrick M said...

Toad: you can absolutely have progressive tax based on consumption. And common sense. Great way to teach people to live within their means, rather than playing the shell game that an income tax involves.

Name one thing [The Marxist] has done which is "marxist".

Name one thing The Marxist has done. I base it on what he's said, because the most he's done is be there, maybe vote for something bipartisan, vote present when he has to take a side.