I was Neil Cavuto's interview of Herman Cain today (waiving my presen boycott rule of not "srufing" the unfair and unbalanced network for more than a toatl of 3 minutes a day). It confirrmed why I am continuing to strongly recommend that you BOYCOT the unfair and unbalanced network. It confirmed my opinion of that network. Read the previous article, and realize that I fully intended what I say about "journalists' in that article to apply to the people of the unfair and unbalanced network. I have taken on Neil Cavuto by name before, and he fits fully withon my decription of EVIL PEOPLE SPREADING EVIL. This expalins, by the way, why I have not seen even ONE minute of the 'prime time" lineup on the unfair and unbalanced network in about two weeks. I can "surf" adeequately enough to see where the network is coming from without listening to the mainly OPINION prime time lineup.: So no O'Reilly. No Hannity. No Van Susteren. lNo need to surf them. They are bad enough in themselves, even though I would acknowledge Hannity as an annoying conservative (probably a more orthodox conservative than I am, which is NOT a compliment). I digress (sort of).
What was wrong with Cavuto's interview with Caih? Everything. Yes, the first thing wrong was the very convept of Cain coming on to "explain" and 'defend" himself as to allegations from Ginger White (or whatever her name is), and Cai's "reassessment" of his campaign. Such "up frfont" honesty and openness may get Cain points, even with me, but it s fatal to his campaign. You jsut can't keep gvign inteviews limited to "explaining" "allegations" against you. Fatal. But Cavuto compounded the problem by his EVIL attitude. (again, no hyperbole is meant).
What do I mean? Well, in general what I mean is that Cavuto treated this like itws an opportunity for him to ask "tough" questions. Message to Neil Cavuto: You thereby confirmed my previous impression that I should have nothing but total CONTEMPT for you, and for the unfair and unbalanced network. See, again, the previous article. Why am I saying this? ?Don't I agree that the job of a "journalist" is to "challegnge" the candidate? Not on this. See agian, my previous article. If a candidate is avioding a SUBSTANTIVE question, then the candidate should be "presssed" (which does not keep the unfair and unbalanced network from aksing UNFAIR substantive questins, with absurd premises). The "job" of a "journalist" is to get INFORMATION--NOT to "get" the intervieweee. Cavuto should have looked at this intreview as a chnce to get INFORMATION on Cain's FACTUAL position with regard to the allegations against him, and the status of his cmaping. As I said, it ws CAIN"S MISTAKE to agree to a interview solely on this subject. It was CAVUTO'S MISTAKE to look at this as a chance to "impress' his felow EVIL "journalists' with his "tough" questions.
You want an example? I have one (as if you did not know that). Cavuto ENDED the interview with what he boviously thought wsa the "kiler question". And it was the "killer question". It KILLED any remainging respect I had for Neil Cavuto. Yep. It was that absurd, stupid questinas to why Ginger White would say Heraman Cain should not be President, and what Cain's reaction to that assertion by her is.
Say what, Cavuto? ; You actually represented to your audience that it is RELEVANT, and even IMPROTANT, what Ginger Whitge thinks of Herman Cain as a potential President. That, Neil (can I call you Neil, now that we are on firt name insult terms), makes you a CERTIFIED IDIOT. My certificate is in the mail. No, this was nt all that was bad about Cavuto's interview. It merely CAPPED it with a reosounding, evil stupidity. You woul ddo much better getting ME on you show talking aobut whether I think Herman Cain should be President. By any standard, my opinion is more worthy of attentino thatn Gineger White's, and I say that with full knwoledge that most people would consider my opinion as not "newsworthy".
You need to read my previous article. Then reread the above. Have I jsut said that Neil Cavuto is WORSE than serial killers and terrorists? Well, I think I have. And I stand by it (so lnog as you understand what I mean by "moral blame", and the fact taht "journalists"--as a rule--have fewer possible "exuses" than serial killers and terrorists), As usual, I invite Cavuto, or anyone on his behalif, to try to defend himself in this blog (I promise no editiing, and that I will not delete any comment--as I never have). Oh. And I promise to give Cavuto the SAME consideratin he gave Herman Cain. If that does nto keep Cavuto away, nothing will.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). By the way, IF a woman came forward and said she was 'sexually harrassed" by Barack Obama ten years ago, o said she had an affair with him, I would have the same attitude. We really need to get past this stuff. It is making our political campaigns SEWER operations, and the mainstream media LEADS the "negative" ad war--disguising THEIR negative ads as "news'. The MOST that should ever be "reported" is the FACTS concerning "allegations", without hysteria or suggestinos that such allegations are important (these kind of character assassination allegatins). But we would be better off going back to the 1950s-1960s, where even the FACTS of secaul infidelity by JFK, etc. were ignored. There is no way to conduct a "trial" of this kind of thing in the medai, and NO way to be "fair" about this type of sordid allegation. It is interesting that teh supposedly SEXUALLY REPRESSED 1950s were omuch more realistic, and less PRIGGISH, about this kind of thing. For many years, I have said that we have become a NATION OF PRIGS (especially as to peoole wiht whom we disagree), at the same time we have become SEXUALLLY UNHEALTHY (you might say promiscuous, in terms of most people). I thik it si time to ask Neil Cavuto's FORMER GIRFRIENDS an dFORMER WIVVES (if he has any) whther they think he "shoubld be" a "news anchor" on national TV. Good luck Neil. And that does not even count women who might merely ASSERT taht they are a former girlfriend.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Skip33666: Barack Obama and I Had an Affair for 14 Years, and I Know He Should Not Be Presidentg
Hacker Boy (hacking into this disgraceful blog again in the interest of truth, justice and teh American way, despite Skip's attempt to smear me as an agent of Rupter Murdoch--Skip disgracefully using the publicity about the hacking by a Murdoch operation in Britain to lend "credibility" to his attempt to smear me, and intimidate me into ceasing this public interest hacking into this despicable blog): "Skip. You have again outdone yourself, just when everyone said it could not be done--that you had lied and distorted beynd any possibility of getting any worse. You know that headline is absurd. You are a 64 year old white MAN (if we can believe you). I doubt if you have ever even spoken to Barack Obama. Yet, you are claiming to have had anAFFAIR (note te, Skip, the use of your all caps device for emphasis) with Barack Obama. You are despicable . Does the Secret Service know about you? And what makes YOOU (all caps again) qualified to say whether Barack Obama should be President of teh United States."
Skip: I am glad that Hacker Boyo is literate enough to quote Daffy Duck ("you are despicable"). Okay, I agree taht it is somewhat unlikely that Obama would have had an affair with me, although in today's society not impossible. I have to admit that I have never actually taked to Barack Obama, and that our "afair" is totally of the mind. However, I will probably be releasing 50 text messages we have exchanged, as soon as I can compose them. Of course, I do say that Barack Obama should not be Preisdent of the United States. And I am more qualified to say that than Ginger White, whose opinion on the subject is all over the media (including the unfair and unbalanced network, which you should be boycotting; See the next article on Cavuto and teh DISGRACEFUL questions he asked Herman Cain). I was high school valedictorian, graduated with high honors from New Mexico State University with a degree in physics (mathematics minor), and graduated with high honors from the Unitversity of Texas School of Law. then I was an attorney in Texas for some 35 years. It is true taht I never declared bankruptcy, or got sued for libel, like Ms. White (assuming I got this name right, as I am not at all interested in her name), who is Cain's accuser. I actuallyl think that I AM "qualified' to evaluate whether Barack Obama should be President of the United States, but you may think (kike my mother) that is just proof of an insane ego rivialling Bill O'Reilly and Obama himself. Again, that is not the point. It is ABSUD to suggest that Ginger White's opinion on Herman Cain is RELEVANT to whether Herman Cain should be President. In fact, it is ABSURD to suggest taht Giner White's opinioin is "news'. It is a SMEAR by incommpetnt EVIL people (taling "journalists" here, and not some "conspiracy" behind Ms. White).
If I were a woman, and had written the above headline about Herman Cain, I would be "news" (assuming I could at least show I had ever met Herman Cain, although I am geting less and less sure that even that is necesssary for today's EVIL "journalist" out to SMEAR a conservative/GOP politician.). That is the reason for the headline, and this article. We are creating an EVIL society, where "back fence" gossip is acceptable so long as the victim (Herman Cain, for example) is somone regarded as an "acceptable" target. I have said that I belive "jounalists" are now the most despicable people alive, only accepting serial killers and terrorists. I have changed my mind. They are WORSE than serial killers and terrorists, and I think the pubic about rnks them that way. The public, in this case, is DEAD ON CORRECT. In saying this, I am mainly using the standarsds set by mainstream media "journliasts", who ranked George W. Bush as far worse than terrorists, and often seem to be ranking the United States of America as worse than terrorists and terrorist states. But we are talking here "moral blame". Serial killers and terrrorists are distrubed individuals. It is ture that they may not have the disadvantage of a "libveral" eduction, but serial killers and terrorists may have EXCUUSES (or at least reasons) for their mental derangement. "Journlaists' have no excuse (generally), and no acceptable reasons. Even when it is pointed out what they are doing, they still not only keep on doing it, but WHINE and try to "justify" themselves. There are no worse lpeole on this planet, and I no longer exclude serial killers and terrorists (in general, taking into account all of teh factors that go into "moral blame"). The peoiple of the unfair and unbalanced network are included in this evaluation of "journalists", as this blog has shwon over months and years. I worry that I am holding back here, and not saying what I mean. Let me summarize it this way: I hae more contempt for "journalists" than I have for any other human beings on this planet, with only a very few exceptioins. I think better of my fellow citizens that I am not alone here, just as their opinion of Congress shows that I am not alone there either (so long as they do not fall for the EVOIL "journalist" assertion that all we need is "compromise", and everythng will be fine, especailly if all of those conservatives out there would learn to give uyp their principles and adopt the "principes' that the "journalists" know are right).
I repeat: It is a LIE to assert that the OPINION of Ginger White, on Heman Cain or anybody else, is relevant (much less "news'). The opinion of the ordinary man on the street is worth at least as much. This (this putting forth of he OPINION as being relevant to anyting) is enough to CONVICT "journalists" of both "journalistic" malpractice and of being EVIL people SPREADIG EVIL. And I do not mean this as hyperbole. It is an absolute fact. The media is in the process of turning our electins into a "contest" of BACK FENCE GOSSIP, and that is one of the things that may ultiimately destory this coutnry (agian, not meant at all as hyperbole).
Look at where we are. Bill Clinton had MULTIPLE "affirs"--including in the Oval Office as President, and BEFORE running for Preisdent. There were TAPES (Jeffifer Flowes). Now I gagged on the sex with an INTERN (Penn State , anyone?--even if she were technically an adullt) in the Oval Office. But I actualy thought that Bill Clinton's affairs were irrelevant. The media agreed then, and then dismissed MULTIPLE calims of "sexual harrassment" against Bill Clinton as to conduct both before and after he became President. Contrast that with how the media has treated Herman Cain--to NO GOP or "conservative" defense, because those "movers and shakers" don't think Herman Cain can defeat Brack Obama and wanted to get rid of him. That is not to mentin the RACISM here, and the attmempt to trade on that old "fear" of black men an dwhite women (dating all of the way back to before the Civil War).
Again, look at where our society now is . A lefitst Democrat MAY get awaywith dismissing aattacks on him or her, IF the "attacker" is someone like Ginger White (or can be made to appear that way with character assassination) . But if youi are a conservative, or a member of teh GOP, ANY woman can "come forward" and make "accusations". And the "accusations" alone--even as to pretty tame stuff--are supposed to be enough to KILL a campaign. You know the dril here. It is the DISTRACTION. ow can Herman Cain keep going, with the constant DISATRACTION of all of these "charges" (a "distraction" created totally by the EVIL media peope themselves). I do think the media has destroyed Cain's campaign, absent a miracle, because Cain did not come out SwINGING (making the media the isssue, and pretty much ignoring the "chrages"). But all of this obscures the EVIL here, which is putting our Preisdential elections into the hands of SMEAR MERCHANTS. Again, I am NOT talking aobut a "conspiracy" here.--at least not in "instigatig" directly the women to come forward. I am talking about the MEDIA, who are ENCOURAGING any person out thre who wants her 15 minutes of fame to make "allegations" against Herman Cain (or any conservative). And the "allegations' are thnen supposed to be enough to sink the campaign, whether or not they can be proven to be true. I epeart: This is EVIL stuff advanced by EVIL pep[;e (I have long ago named names at CNN, as well as elsewhere in the media). Agia, it is these "journalists' who are the SMEAR MERCHANTS: the EVIL people I am tlaking aobut. The people who come forward and the people who may institagate them, are only doing what the EVIL people in the media are INVITING them to do.
"Skip, you can't possibliy be saying that the media should IGNORE these allegations, even if you consider them smears." Oh, but I do, if they were real "journalists" (instead of EViL people with an agenda). No, it is NOT relevant whether Herman Cain had an "affair". Worse, it opens our political campaigns up to being SORDID exercises in back fence gossip, which wer are promoting to be the main "issue'" in the campaign. As I have said before: Waht is the REAL reason adultery should not be a crime? Nope, it is NOT because "sex" should not be criminal. It IS because we should NOT be looking in people's bedrooms to ferret out this 'crime". But even that is not rally it. Who gets "charged" with adultery? Righ: Either the very unlucky or the peole who the authorites want to GET for some reason (or someone else wants to "get"). That is exactly what is happening here. The media is encouraging people to come forward against CONSERVATIVES. And it is often impossible to "prove' what has happened, as the MEDIA "looks into people's bedrooms" (albeit vicariously). Thus, anyone UNLUCKY enough to have mere ALLEGATIONS made faces a Herculean task, especailly if he or she is a TARGET of teh mainstream media (including the unfair and unbalanced network). No, I don't think Newt Gingrich's lurid past has anything to do with whether he should be President (where I oppose him on more substantive grounds), and I don't think that the LESS LURID allegations (not even at all proven) against Cain have anything to do with whether he should be President. As to what I think about Ms. Whitel's OPINION of Herman Cain, and its "relevance", that is not even printable. It DOES NOT MATTER whether this stuff is mainly true, half ture, or mostly not ture. The mere attempt to "investigate" that, spllalshing the "allegations" all oover the "news', is an EVIL, SORDID thing. The most you can say is that it "tests" whether a candidate like Cain can "stand up" to this kind of EviL attack, adn that Cain has pretty much failed that test (as I think arguably he has, but NOt because the "allegations" have been relevant). But this is EVIL in itself, because it ENABLES evil. If we are going to say taht EVIL attacks are okay if a candidate is unable to stand up under them, but cracks or is unable to meet the evil head on, then we are merely rafifying the EVIL. I refuse to do that. Thus, this blgo maintains its endorsement of Hrman Cain, even though my best opinion is that theEVIL LSMEAR MERCHANTS of teh media have done Cain in (thus encouraing them to keep making our political campaigns about this SORDID, irrelevant back street gossip).
Oh. You say you want "better" people to run for office? Why should they. 50% of American men, or more, have committed adultery (if you believe the "surveys"). That eliminates 50% of potential male candidates right there. 100% of American men CAN be "alleged" to hae conducted "sexual harrassment". Especially for conservatives, that basically eliminates ALL male candidates, except the most bland. And we have not yet evn scrachted the surface of possible SMEARS. CNN, and the mainstream media, SMEARED Newt Gingrich over a FIFFANY'S CREDIT ACCXOUNT. Thye went so far as to suggest it pretty much disqualified him from being Preisdent. That is ABUSRD. It is EVIL stuff. CNN is STILL trying to SMEAR Mitt Romney over being Mormon (see plannedblog article). Illnness? Psychiatirc treatment? Marital problems (not even involving adultery, but where a wife has accused a husband of things--as with Jeri Ryan in Illinois some years back)? The liest just goes on and on. If you are a lefitst Democarat, the mainstream media will IGNORE the "smear" (as it did with Sean Hannity's attempted smears of Barack Obama, which were MORE relevant than what has been alleged against Herman Cain, and as they did with regard to the Reverend Wright matter). The e mainstream media continues to ignore, when it is not ATTACkING, the allegatin taht Barack Obama is not really a Christian (as Bill Maher and I agree he is not). But what if a CONSRVATIVE ever left God out of the Declaration of Independence, or accused small town Americans of "clinging to their religion". Or what if Sarah Palin once belonged to a church that is known for "speaking in tongues", wich most Americans might regard as not a "real" Christian religon (more of a cult, like the media likes to assert, by proxy, with regard to Romney).? Right. THEN the media will start "investigating" the DETAILS of a persons' relition, as CNN did with an article entitled 'The Gospel According to Herman Cainn."
These people ("journalists") are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. They are EVIL people spreading evil. I have no respect for them at all. I wish they knew enough about me to make the feeling mutual,. Maybe some day.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Skip: I am glad that Hacker Boyo is literate enough to quote Daffy Duck ("you are despicable"). Okay, I agree taht it is somewhat unlikely that Obama would have had an affair with me, although in today's society not impossible. I have to admit that I have never actually taked to Barack Obama, and that our "afair" is totally of the mind. However, I will probably be releasing 50 text messages we have exchanged, as soon as I can compose them. Of course, I do say that Barack Obama should not be Preisdent of the United States. And I am more qualified to say that than Ginger White, whose opinion on the subject is all over the media (including the unfair and unbalanced network, which you should be boycotting; See the next article on Cavuto and teh DISGRACEFUL questions he asked Herman Cain). I was high school valedictorian, graduated with high honors from New Mexico State University with a degree in physics (mathematics minor), and graduated with high honors from the Unitversity of Texas School of Law. then I was an attorney in Texas for some 35 years. It is true taht I never declared bankruptcy, or got sued for libel, like Ms. White (assuming I got this name right, as I am not at all interested in her name), who is Cain's accuser. I actuallyl think that I AM "qualified' to evaluate whether Barack Obama should be President of the United States, but you may think (kike my mother) that is just proof of an insane ego rivialling Bill O'Reilly and Obama himself. Again, that is not the point. It is ABSUD to suggest that Ginger White's opinion on Herman Cain is RELEVANT to whether Herman Cain should be President. In fact, it is ABSURD to suggest taht Giner White's opinioin is "news'. It is a SMEAR by incommpetnt EVIL people (taling "journalists" here, and not some "conspiracy" behind Ms. White).
If I were a woman, and had written the above headline about Herman Cain, I would be "news" (assuming I could at least show I had ever met Herman Cain, although I am geting less and less sure that even that is necesssary for today's EVIL "journalist" out to SMEAR a conservative/GOP politician.). That is the reason for the headline, and this article. We are creating an EVIL society, where "back fence" gossip is acceptable so long as the victim (Herman Cain, for example) is somone regarded as an "acceptable" target. I have said that I belive "jounalists" are now the most despicable people alive, only accepting serial killers and terrorists. I have changed my mind. They are WORSE than serial killers and terrorists, and I think the pubic about rnks them that way. The public, in this case, is DEAD ON CORRECT. In saying this, I am mainly using the standarsds set by mainstream media "journliasts", who ranked George W. Bush as far worse than terrorists, and often seem to be ranking the United States of America as worse than terrorists and terrorist states. But we are talking here "moral blame". Serial killers and terrrorists are distrubed individuals. It is ture that they may not have the disadvantage of a "libveral" eduction, but serial killers and terrorists may have EXCUUSES (or at least reasons) for their mental derangement. "Journlaists' have no excuse (generally), and no acceptable reasons. Even when it is pointed out what they are doing, they still not only keep on doing it, but WHINE and try to "justify" themselves. There are no worse lpeole on this planet, and I no longer exclude serial killers and terrorists (in general, taking into account all of teh factors that go into "moral blame"). The peoiple of the unfair and unbalanced network are included in this evaluation of "journalists", as this blog has shwon over months and years. I worry that I am holding back here, and not saying what I mean. Let me summarize it this way: I hae more contempt for "journalists" than I have for any other human beings on this planet, with only a very few exceptioins. I think better of my fellow citizens that I am not alone here, just as their opinion of Congress shows that I am not alone there either (so long as they do not fall for the EVOIL "journalist" assertion that all we need is "compromise", and everythng will be fine, especailly if all of those conservatives out there would learn to give uyp their principles and adopt the "principes' that the "journalists" know are right).
I repeat: It is a LIE to assert that the OPINION of Ginger White, on Heman Cain or anybody else, is relevant (much less "news'). The opinion of the ordinary man on the street is worth at least as much. This (this putting forth of he OPINION as being relevant to anyting) is enough to CONVICT "journalists" of both "journalistic" malpractice and of being EVIL people SPREADIG EVIL. And I do not mean this as hyperbole. It is an absolute fact. The media is in the process of turning our electins into a "contest" of BACK FENCE GOSSIP, and that is one of the things that may ultiimately destory this coutnry (agian, not meant at all as hyperbole).
Look at where we are. Bill Clinton had MULTIPLE "affirs"--including in the Oval Office as President, and BEFORE running for Preisdent. There were TAPES (Jeffifer Flowes). Now I gagged on the sex with an INTERN (Penn State , anyone?--even if she were technically an adullt) in the Oval Office. But I actualy thought that Bill Clinton's affairs were irrelevant. The media agreed then, and then dismissed MULTIPLE calims of "sexual harrassment" against Bill Clinton as to conduct both before and after he became President. Contrast that with how the media has treated Herman Cain--to NO GOP or "conservative" defense, because those "movers and shakers" don't think Herman Cain can defeat Brack Obama and wanted to get rid of him. That is not to mentin the RACISM here, and the attmempt to trade on that old "fear" of black men an dwhite women (dating all of the way back to before the Civil War).
Again, look at where our society now is . A lefitst Democrat MAY get awaywith dismissing aattacks on him or her, IF the "attacker" is someone like Ginger White (or can be made to appear that way with character assassination) . But if youi are a conservative, or a member of teh GOP, ANY woman can "come forward" and make "accusations". And the "accusations" alone--even as to pretty tame stuff--are supposed to be enough to KILL a campaign. You know the dril here. It is the DISTRACTION. ow can Herman Cain keep going, with the constant DISATRACTION of all of these "charges" (a "distraction" created totally by the EVIL media peope themselves). I do think the media has destroyed Cain's campaign, absent a miracle, because Cain did not come out SwINGING (making the media the isssue, and pretty much ignoring the "chrages"). But all of this obscures the EVIL here, which is putting our Preisdential elections into the hands of SMEAR MERCHANTS. Again, I am NOT talking aobut a "conspiracy" here.--at least not in "instigatig" directly the women to come forward. I am talking about the MEDIA, who are ENCOURAGING any person out thre who wants her 15 minutes of fame to make "allegations" against Herman Cain (or any conservative). And the "allegations' are thnen supposed to be enough to sink the campaign, whether or not they can be proven to be true. I epeart: This is EVIL stuff advanced by EVIL pep[;e (I have long ago named names at CNN, as well as elsewhere in the media). Agia, it is these "journalists' who are the SMEAR MERCHANTS: the EVIL people I am tlaking aobut. The people who come forward and the people who may institagate them, are only doing what the EVIL people in the media are INVITING them to do.
"Skip, you can't possibliy be saying that the media should IGNORE these allegations, even if you consider them smears." Oh, but I do, if they were real "journalists" (instead of EViL people with an agenda). No, it is NOT relevant whether Herman Cain had an "affair". Worse, it opens our political campaigns up to being SORDID exercises in back fence gossip, which wer are promoting to be the main "issue'" in the campaign. As I have said before: Waht is the REAL reason adultery should not be a crime? Nope, it is NOT because "sex" should not be criminal. It IS because we should NOT be looking in people's bedrooms to ferret out this 'crime". But even that is not rally it. Who gets "charged" with adultery? Righ: Either the very unlucky or the peole who the authorites want to GET for some reason (or someone else wants to "get"). That is exactly what is happening here. The media is encouraging people to come forward against CONSERVATIVES. And it is often impossible to "prove' what has happened, as the MEDIA "looks into people's bedrooms" (albeit vicariously). Thus, anyone UNLUCKY enough to have mere ALLEGATIONS made faces a Herculean task, especailly if he or she is a TARGET of teh mainstream media (including the unfair and unbalanced network). No, I don't think Newt Gingrich's lurid past has anything to do with whether he should be President (where I oppose him on more substantive grounds), and I don't think that the LESS LURID allegations (not even at all proven) against Cain have anything to do with whether he should be President. As to what I think about Ms. Whitel's OPINION of Herman Cain, and its "relevance", that is not even printable. It DOES NOT MATTER whether this stuff is mainly true, half ture, or mostly not ture. The mere attempt to "investigate" that, spllalshing the "allegations" all oover the "news', is an EVIL, SORDID thing. The most you can say is that it "tests" whether a candidate like Cain can "stand up" to this kind of EviL attack, adn that Cain has pretty much failed that test (as I think arguably he has, but NOt because the "allegations" have been relevant). But this is EVIL in itself, because it ENABLES evil. If we are going to say taht EVIL attacks are okay if a candidate is unable to stand up under them, but cracks or is unable to meet the evil head on, then we are merely rafifying the EVIL. I refuse to do that. Thus, this blgo maintains its endorsement of Hrman Cain, even though my best opinion is that theEVIL LSMEAR MERCHANTS of teh media have done Cain in (thus encouraing them to keep making our political campaigns about this SORDID, irrelevant back street gossip).
Oh. You say you want "better" people to run for office? Why should they. 50% of American men, or more, have committed adultery (if you believe the "surveys"). That eliminates 50% of potential male candidates right there. 100% of American men CAN be "alleged" to hae conducted "sexual harrassment". Especially for conservatives, that basically eliminates ALL male candidates, except the most bland. And we have not yet evn scrachted the surface of possible SMEARS. CNN, and the mainstream media, SMEARED Newt Gingrich over a FIFFANY'S CREDIT ACCXOUNT. Thye went so far as to suggest it pretty much disqualified him from being Preisdent. That is ABUSRD. It is EVIL stuff. CNN is STILL trying to SMEAR Mitt Romney over being Mormon (see plannedblog article). Illnness? Psychiatirc treatment? Marital problems (not even involving adultery, but where a wife has accused a husband of things--as with Jeri Ryan in Illinois some years back)? The liest just goes on and on. If you are a lefitst Democarat, the mainstream media will IGNORE the "smear" (as it did with Sean Hannity's attempted smears of Barack Obama, which were MORE relevant than what has been alleged against Herman Cain, and as they did with regard to the Reverend Wright matter). The e mainstream media continues to ignore, when it is not ATTACkING, the allegatin taht Barack Obama is not really a Christian (as Bill Maher and I agree he is not). But what if a CONSRVATIVE ever left God out of the Declaration of Independence, or accused small town Americans of "clinging to their religion". Or what if Sarah Palin once belonged to a church that is known for "speaking in tongues", wich most Americans might regard as not a "real" Christian religon (more of a cult, like the media likes to assert, by proxy, with regard to Romney).? Right. THEN the media will start "investigating" the DETAILS of a persons' relition, as CNN did with an article entitled 'The Gospel According to Herman Cainn."
These people ("journalists") are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. They are EVIL people spreading evil. I have no respect for them at all. I wish they knew enough about me to make the feeling mutual,. Maybe some day.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Wall Street: The Stupidest People on Earth--Bailout Central (Economic Fascists All)
"World's Central Bankers Act to Ease Market Strains"
That is the "news" headline today, as Wall Street "celebrates" taking control of world economic policy in order to further FAIL OUT banks and Wall Street (and its equivalent around the world). If this does not SCARE you, and give lyou a sick feeling, noting will. ("Celebrates" is in quotes because this is really more the hype driven reaction of a COMPUTER TRADING CASINO than anything remotely connected to reality, as the Dow is now up more than 400 poihnts, and some 700 points in a few days, creating anohter mini stock market BUBBLE in the space of about 3 trading days.)
In case you have forgotten, "economic fascism" has noting to do with Hitler (other than that some of the "central bankers" of Germany thought theywere "partners" with Hitler, and could "control" him). "Economic fascism" is that term, predating Hitler, which refers to that theoretical economic system where Big Government and Big Business/financial institutions join together in a PARTNERSHIP to run the economy and your live. Look at the headlinequoted above once more, and then tell me if you do not think that Wall Street believes that we are now in an era of ECONOMIC FASCISM. As in Germany, under Hitler, these people tink thta they now have a "partnership" with government--a "partnership" that they can CONTROL. As the headline says, there are no more STUPID people on this Earth. The idea is that CENTRAL PLANNING, son long as it is controlled by CENTRAL BANKERS, can "solve" all of our problems. Both history and theory says this is NOUT TURE, and it isn't. Ben Bernanke and Wall Street "experts" are not saviors,. In fact, the evidence shows that Ben Bernanke is The Wort Failure in the History of World Finance. Lest you forget, he was appoiinted to head the Federal Reserve in early 2006, more than two years BEFORE the economy collapsed. The economy collapsed on HIS WATCH (as well as on the watch, and becasued of the actions--inpart, at least--of the very people who are now supposed to be "saving" us in Europe, as they follow the disastrous example of Bernanke and our "bailout" psychology).
Can central bankers really "wave a magic wand" (my "magic wand theory of government") and "solve" our economic problems by continually bailing out Wall Street? If you have listened to CNBC ever since 2008, you would get that impression, as the economic fascists have taken control on Wall Strreet in a desperate attempt to make BAILING THEM OUT the central foucs of world econmic policy. Loook at that headline once again. It refers to "market strains". In other words, this new actioin by the world's central bankers, which they want to be copoied by governments letting them control government economic policy, is specificaly designed and intended to BIL OUT FINANCIAL MARKETS. The WORLD ECONOMY is no better today than it was yesterday (in fact, the evidence overnight is that it is getting WORSE). The only change is that Wall Street, and world "financial markets", think that they have gained CONTROL of POLICY for their own benefit.
Ah, President Obama (Economic Fascist-in-Chief). While our President has been bASING Wall Street and the big banks, he has tujrned over economic pollicy to Ben Bernanke and Tim Geitner, who have neverf stopped BAILING OUT Wall Street and teh banks. Talk about HYPOCRISY. In fact, it is not too much to say that Obama is depending on Bernnake and Geitner to BAIL H:I OUT with this continual bailout of Wall Street and Big Banks/Big Business. Can YOU borrow money at 0 percent from the Fed, and then LOAN it back tot he Federal Government at 3% or so? No? Well, the banks can. That is the dirty little secret: The bailout of the banks has never stopped, and now Obama (through Geitner, Bernanke and European central bankers) is DOUBLING DOWN on this bailout philosophy, for the venefit of Walkl Street and financial institutions. Do the "Occupy Wall Street" people know this? Well, actually, those who have an y clue DO know this, since theirs was a POLITICAL "movement" of the LEFT rather than a real uprising from below where the people have some idea what they are protesting (as with, for examaple, the Tea Party, where people generally did know what they were rotesting, and what they wanted).
ADVICE from this blog (IF you are crazy enough to want to TRADE teh stock market, which is the only way you can approach the COMPUTER GAMING CASINO that it has become): SELL into (large) rallies (as I am again starting to do with this one). BUY into (large) declines--as I had STARTED to do with the decline we were just in. Yep. This "central banker' ploy made it hard for me to fully impllement this (correct) strategy, as the stock market ws headed lower until the "central bankers" (economic fascists and central planning idiots) PANICKED into desperate action. Thus, the market never got low enough for me to buy as much as I would hae had it continued lower. Plus, the stocks I buy tend not to be the FAD stocks which go way up on this kind of sick (I mean it, as a market can be just as "sick" going irrationally up as going way down), explosieve rally. You should be able to see that this is a DANGEROUS gavme, and not one I recommend be tired "at home" by peole who don't understand what they are doing. No, even if you DO understand what you are doing, it is a dangerous game. You can guess that I do not play the game quite the way the computer gamers on Wall Street are laying it--a game of musical chairs whre you look to the government to gvail you out if the music stops with you not having a chair. But I do now play my own modified version of the game. As I say, SELL into big rallies, and BUY into big declines. If you are insance enough to play this game at all, that is what you HAVE to do. Then consider those people who buy AFTER the Dow has gone up 400 points (like today), or really 700 points (over a matter of days). To call those people The Stupidest People on Earth is to be kind to them. At the very best, they are computer gamers plaing their own game right on the edge. Taht is what is wrong with The Stupidest People on Earth. They are not even RATIONIAL (or their computer gaming does not let them appear to be). If yo KNOW that it is STUPID to BUY into these big rallies, why does the stock markeet keep going up AFTER it has already risinn (say) f200 points, and 500 points in a few days? You can understand this only if you undrestand that the stock market is, in fact, now a computer gaming casion trading on momentum. I have summarized this (yeas ago now) with this statement: "There is NO bottom, and there is NO toop.". In other words, once the "market" starts really gong down, there is NO point at which it will necessariy stoop, and once itsstarts ging strongly up the same thing applies. Economic reality is not a factor (other than triggering, sometimes, teh HYPE for these computer driven moves).
Am I saying the stockmarket will go down from here.? Not exactly. I don't KNOW that. I am saing that it monumentally stupid (Wall Street stupid) to BUY into a stock market rallying lke this. In a RATINAL market, selles would be SELLING into this kind of raly, as I recommend, MODERTING it. But rationality has left the stock market long ago, if it were ever there. As I have said, again correctly, stocktraders of today are rally WORSE than those of 1929-certainly no better. I remain convinced that this will eventuallyl destroy the stock market, to the extent it has not already done so, but these economic fascists mayu well destroy us all first. Or their destructin of their own markets with these computer games may end up destroying us in and of itself. I am really an optimist today, aren't I? Well, why shold today be any different? I am just a sunny, optimistic kind of person.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Do you understand WHY a HEALTHY stock market will NOT keep ging up, without limit (just like it shold not keep going down,without limit)? Let me try to explain it to you. And remember, there is no indication that thre has been any fundamental change in the EcONMY (as is usually true in these huge moves, on hype rather than reality). What SHOULD happen as the Dow goes up 50, then 10m, then 150, then 200, then 250, etc.? Easy, the higher the market goes, the more SELLERS should coe in--peole who reaize this kind of rally is overdone And the stock market should NEVER simply open 300 points up or 300 points down. That means you don't really have "investors" operating on economnic reality. "Bids" should be made by people who belive that the initial indicated move is overdone, and SELLEWS should be willing to sELL because they realize that trhey have a chance to "lock in" profits before a reacino sets in. Instead, in the mocern compter gaming casino, moves FEED on themselves, so that the stock market can move hundreds of pints in a few minutes. There is nothing rational about this, except in the sense that the speculative market of 1929 was "artional". But, before computers, and after the kind of specualtion of 1929 was somewhat curbed by both rules and the experience of 2929, the stock market did not really move quite this wildly. With the advent of computers, however, and "high freuency trading", we are really back to the market of TOTAL SPECULATION that we had in 1929. That is why my recommended way of TRADING the market is a truly dangerous game. Yes, we are in a RANGE now, and have been for some time. In fact, the computer gamers almsot always establish a RANGE in which they play (now between about 1120 on te S & P 500 and about 1250). But you should be able to see the roblem. We ARE in a range, which means that RATINAL people would start CONTRACTING the range, as they trade in ANTICIMPATION of what the range is. But we re dealing with The Stupidest People on Earth here. Nevertheless, don't forget the fundamental point here: "There is no bottom, and there is o top." That means the "range" can be TAKEN OUT in a matter of minuts. The market--sick either way-can either COLLAPSE on teh downside, or EXPLODE on the upside, at any time, wihout real warning. All it takes is for the momentum cascade to get going. That is why Jim Cramer (one of The Stupidest People on Earth) is right on this particular point: You need to now buy GRADUALLLY into any large decline, and sell GRADUALLY into any rally. And you can still be taken out. For example, I am now convinced that we are headling toward an economic collapse--certaily toward a period where real econimc progress is impossible. Well, when that beomces OBVIOUS (when Bernanke--The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance--fails again), tkhe stock market (no bottom, remember) may go straight through any "support", with "no bottom". In the meantime, it is always possible for us to have an explosive move upward. No, today is not reallyl THAT move, because we are still int he RANGE. But if we were to explosively break out of the range, then we might take out a ot of "resistance" levels on the upside,. It is all roulette. However, it is ccracy to BUY into an exlosvie rally, or SELL into an exlosve decline. You need to do exaclty the opposite, which means that such rallies and declines should be MODERATED by buyers and sellers buhnig into delcines and selling into rallies. That this does not usually happpen is conclusive proof that we have a SICK stock market-nothing but a computer gaming casiono. I jsut wih that such CASION was not now asserting control over the economic poiy of the world for THEIR BENEFIT. If we had let them FAIL (as we shold have), we wold be much better off now. That is one of the reasons I belive we are headed for economic collapse: this "bailout" psychology, which has disgusted ordinary PEOPLE but is still the controlling philosophy on Wall Street and in government.
That is the "news" headline today, as Wall Street "celebrates" taking control of world economic policy in order to further FAIL OUT banks and Wall Street (and its equivalent around the world). If this does not SCARE you, and give lyou a sick feeling, noting will. ("Celebrates" is in quotes because this is really more the hype driven reaction of a COMPUTER TRADING CASINO than anything remotely connected to reality, as the Dow is now up more than 400 poihnts, and some 700 points in a few days, creating anohter mini stock market BUBBLE in the space of about 3 trading days.)
In case you have forgotten, "economic fascism" has noting to do with Hitler (other than that some of the "central bankers" of Germany thought theywere "partners" with Hitler, and could "control" him). "Economic fascism" is that term, predating Hitler, which refers to that theoretical economic system where Big Government and Big Business/financial institutions join together in a PARTNERSHIP to run the economy and your live. Look at the headlinequoted above once more, and then tell me if you do not think that Wall Street believes that we are now in an era of ECONOMIC FASCISM. As in Germany, under Hitler, these people tink thta they now have a "partnership" with government--a "partnership" that they can CONTROL. As the headline says, there are no more STUPID people on this Earth. The idea is that CENTRAL PLANNING, son long as it is controlled by CENTRAL BANKERS, can "solve" all of our problems. Both history and theory says this is NOUT TURE, and it isn't. Ben Bernanke and Wall Street "experts" are not saviors,. In fact, the evidence shows that Ben Bernanke is The Wort Failure in the History of World Finance. Lest you forget, he was appoiinted to head the Federal Reserve in early 2006, more than two years BEFORE the economy collapsed. The economy collapsed on HIS WATCH (as well as on the watch, and becasued of the actions--inpart, at least--of the very people who are now supposed to be "saving" us in Europe, as they follow the disastrous example of Bernanke and our "bailout" psychology).
Can central bankers really "wave a magic wand" (my "magic wand theory of government") and "solve" our economic problems by continually bailing out Wall Street? If you have listened to CNBC ever since 2008, you would get that impression, as the economic fascists have taken control on Wall Strreet in a desperate attempt to make BAILING THEM OUT the central foucs of world econmic policy. Loook at that headline once again. It refers to "market strains". In other words, this new actioin by the world's central bankers, which they want to be copoied by governments letting them control government economic policy, is specificaly designed and intended to BIL OUT FINANCIAL MARKETS. The WORLD ECONOMY is no better today than it was yesterday (in fact, the evidence overnight is that it is getting WORSE). The only change is that Wall Street, and world "financial markets", think that they have gained CONTROL of POLICY for their own benefit.
Ah, President Obama (Economic Fascist-in-Chief). While our President has been bASING Wall Street and the big banks, he has tujrned over economic pollicy to Ben Bernanke and Tim Geitner, who have neverf stopped BAILING OUT Wall Street and teh banks. Talk about HYPOCRISY. In fact, it is not too much to say that Obama is depending on Bernnake and Geitner to BAIL H:I OUT with this continual bailout of Wall Street and Big Banks/Big Business. Can YOU borrow money at 0 percent from the Fed, and then LOAN it back tot he Federal Government at 3% or so? No? Well, the banks can. That is the dirty little secret: The bailout of the banks has never stopped, and now Obama (through Geitner, Bernanke and European central bankers) is DOUBLING DOWN on this bailout philosophy, for the venefit of Walkl Street and financial institutions. Do the "Occupy Wall Street" people know this? Well, actually, those who have an y clue DO know this, since theirs was a POLITICAL "movement" of the LEFT rather than a real uprising from below where the people have some idea what they are protesting (as with, for examaple, the Tea Party, where people generally did know what they were rotesting, and what they wanted).
ADVICE from this blog (IF you are crazy enough to want to TRADE teh stock market, which is the only way you can approach the COMPUTER GAMING CASINO that it has become): SELL into (large) rallies (as I am again starting to do with this one). BUY into (large) declines--as I had STARTED to do with the decline we were just in. Yep. This "central banker' ploy made it hard for me to fully impllement this (correct) strategy, as the stock market ws headed lower until the "central bankers" (economic fascists and central planning idiots) PANICKED into desperate action. Thus, the market never got low enough for me to buy as much as I would hae had it continued lower. Plus, the stocks I buy tend not to be the FAD stocks which go way up on this kind of sick (I mean it, as a market can be just as "sick" going irrationally up as going way down), explosieve rally. You should be able to see that this is a DANGEROUS gavme, and not one I recommend be tired "at home" by peole who don't understand what they are doing. No, even if you DO understand what you are doing, it is a dangerous game. You can guess that I do not play the game quite the way the computer gamers on Wall Street are laying it--a game of musical chairs whre you look to the government to gvail you out if the music stops with you not having a chair. But I do now play my own modified version of the game. As I say, SELL into big rallies, and BUY into big declines. If you are insance enough to play this game at all, that is what you HAVE to do. Then consider those people who buy AFTER the Dow has gone up 400 points (like today), or really 700 points (over a matter of days). To call those people The Stupidest People on Earth is to be kind to them. At the very best, they are computer gamers plaing their own game right on the edge. Taht is what is wrong with The Stupidest People on Earth. They are not even RATIONIAL (or their computer gaming does not let them appear to be). If yo KNOW that it is STUPID to BUY into these big rallies, why does the stock markeet keep going up AFTER it has already risinn (say) f200 points, and 500 points in a few days? You can understand this only if you undrestand that the stock market is, in fact, now a computer gaming casion trading on momentum. I have summarized this (yeas ago now) with this statement: "There is NO bottom, and there is NO toop.". In other words, once the "market" starts really gong down, there is NO point at which it will necessariy stoop, and once itsstarts ging strongly up the same thing applies. Economic reality is not a factor (other than triggering, sometimes, teh HYPE for these computer driven moves).
Am I saying the stockmarket will go down from here.? Not exactly. I don't KNOW that. I am saing that it monumentally stupid (Wall Street stupid) to BUY into a stock market rallying lke this. In a RATINAL market, selles would be SELLING into this kind of raly, as I recommend, MODERTING it. But rationality has left the stock market long ago, if it were ever there. As I have said, again correctly, stocktraders of today are rally WORSE than those of 1929-certainly no better. I remain convinced that this will eventuallyl destroy the stock market, to the extent it has not already done so, but these economic fascists mayu well destroy us all first. Or their destructin of their own markets with these computer games may end up destroying us in and of itself. I am really an optimist today, aren't I? Well, why shold today be any different? I am just a sunny, optimistic kind of person.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Do you understand WHY a HEALTHY stock market will NOT keep ging up, without limit (just like it shold not keep going down,without limit)? Let me try to explain it to you. And remember, there is no indication that thre has been any fundamental change in the EcONMY (as is usually true in these huge moves, on hype rather than reality). What SHOULD happen as the Dow goes up 50, then 10m, then 150, then 200, then 250, etc.? Easy, the higher the market goes, the more SELLERS should coe in--peole who reaize this kind of rally is overdone And the stock market should NEVER simply open 300 points up or 300 points down. That means you don't really have "investors" operating on economnic reality. "Bids" should be made by people who belive that the initial indicated move is overdone, and SELLEWS should be willing to sELL because they realize that trhey have a chance to "lock in" profits before a reacino sets in. Instead, in the mocern compter gaming casino, moves FEED on themselves, so that the stock market can move hundreds of pints in a few minutes. There is nothing rational about this, except in the sense that the speculative market of 1929 was "artional". But, before computers, and after the kind of specualtion of 1929 was somewhat curbed by both rules and the experience of 2929, the stock market did not really move quite this wildly. With the advent of computers, however, and "high freuency trading", we are really back to the market of TOTAL SPECULATION that we had in 1929. That is why my recommended way of TRADING the market is a truly dangerous game. Yes, we are in a RANGE now, and have been for some time. In fact, the computer gamers almsot always establish a RANGE in which they play (now between about 1120 on te S & P 500 and about 1250). But you should be able to see the roblem. We ARE in a range, which means that RATINAL people would start CONTRACTING the range, as they trade in ANTICIMPATION of what the range is. But we re dealing with The Stupidest People on Earth here. Nevertheless, don't forget the fundamental point here: "There is no bottom, and there is o top." That means the "range" can be TAKEN OUT in a matter of minuts. The market--sick either way-can either COLLAPSE on teh downside, or EXPLODE on the upside, at any time, wihout real warning. All it takes is for the momentum cascade to get going. That is why Jim Cramer (one of The Stupidest People on Earth) is right on this particular point: You need to now buy GRADUALLLY into any large decline, and sell GRADUALLY into any rally. And you can still be taken out. For example, I am now convinced that we are headling toward an economic collapse--certaily toward a period where real econimc progress is impossible. Well, when that beomces OBVIOUS (when Bernanke--The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance--fails again), tkhe stock market (no bottom, remember) may go straight through any "support", with "no bottom". In the meantime, it is always possible for us to have an explosive move upward. No, today is not reallyl THAT move, because we are still int he RANGE. But if we were to explosively break out of the range, then we might take out a ot of "resistance" levels on the upside,. It is all roulette. However, it is ccracy to BUY into an exlosvie rally, or SELL into an exlosve decline. You need to do exaclty the opposite, which means that such rallies and declines should be MODERATED by buyers and sellers buhnig into delcines and selling into rallies. That this does not usually happpen is conclusive proof that we have a SICK stock market-nothing but a computer gaming casiono. I jsut wih that such CASION was not now asserting control over the economic poiy of the world for THEIR BENEFIT. If we had let them FAIL (as we shold have), we wold be much better off now. That is one of the reasons I belive we are headed for economic collapse: this "bailout" psychology, which has disgusted ordinary PEOPLE but is still the controlling philosophy on Wall Street and in government.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Deficits: Sex, Lies and Videotape (New, Racist Cain Smear)
What does sex have to do with deficits? Not much. However, the OBSESSION with sex, at least as committed within the GOP sems to obsess the lying hypocrites of the mainstream media andWashington. Nope. I do NOT care about the new, racist allegation taht Herman Cain had a long-germ "affiar" with a woman other than his wife. The reason we did not delve into this stuff (for example with JFK, Eiwenhower or FDR, among many others), even during the supposedly REPRESSED 195s, was that it is a SORDID IRRELEVANCE (a SMEAR) to condkuct a "trial" of a politician's PRIVATE sexual habits in the media. Kinsey, and other surveys, of course, suggest that some 50% of all men have committed adultery. That is really the case against adultery being a crime, and it is the same case against it being an "issue" in a political comapaing. You are automatically being unfair, since you are targeting the people who are CAUGHT, when you KNOW that the sheer SORDIDNESS of "investigating" EVERYONE'S sexual conduct, and conducting "trials" (media or otherwise) about it, brings us ALL down to a level well below the adulterers themselves. yep. I am specifically referring to the EVIL people of the media here, who--by the way--almost certainly commit ADULTERY at a higher rate than the ordinary person. Geraldo Rivera, on the unfair and unbalanced network, this means YOU. And there is a better case for blatant RACISM as to Herman Cain than there ever was as to Barack Obama, with CNN and the ret of the mainstream media being the RACISTS. John Edwards was WHITE. Thre was NO interest in investigating his adultery, while he was running for President or Vice President, until the National Enquirer made it impossible to ignore Edwards. CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, have TARGETED Herman Cain. Yep. This was anohter of those "featured" Associated Press articles tonight on AT&T/Yahoo (Boycott AT&T and Yahoo, I beg you). This is rdid, racist stuff, presented by sordid, racist people (and hypocrites). I have no respect for them (the media--not Herman Cain). This is true even if Cain is "guilty" of adultery in the past. This is only the prelude to the real article, and why "sex' is in tht title. This article is about howl the LIES on defiicts are so much more important than sexual "indiscretioins" that the media should be ashamed of themselves--except tahey have no shame.
Deficit lies? Here is where the massive VIDEOTAPE (or digital now) comes in. Politician after politician, and ALL of CNBC (with the possible exception of Rick Santelli), are on record as saying: "We are gong to 'pay for' short-term deficits with long-term deficit 'cuts'". This is an OBVIOUS LIE ("paying for" short-term deficits with long-term deficit "cuts"). Yep . I am calling Ben Bernanke a LIEAR (in addition to being The Worst Failrue in the History of World Finance). President Obama mainstains his position as Liar-in-Chief. But Jon Kyle, and almost every other GOP (Grand, Outdated Party) politician is a LIAR. Chuck Schumer is a LIAR. So is Cris Wallace (the unfair and unbalanced network--indeed the whole network). Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are LIARS. Bascially all of teh GOP Presidential candidates are LIARS. Doubt me? Never do that!!!!!!!!!!
Let us assume we are at the end of the Clinton years, with a Gingrich House, and the budget is "balanced". Let us even assume (hard as this may be on your imagination) that we have NO debt. In other words, we are assuming a clean slate, for the puropose of TESTING (like a "stress test" on banks) this "theory" that we can "pay for' short-term ADDITIONS to the deifict iwt h "long-term "cuts". This is actually the most FAVORABLE "test" we can make for the "theory", since it is rally obvious that it is absurd to suggest taht we can" pay for" ADDITIONS to the deficit when we are not parying for" teh government we have BEFORE the additions to the deficits.
Okay. We have (assumption) no deebt and no deficit. We have a balanced budget. But Democrat and GOP politicians notice that their "rules" say that we can "pay for" a deficit with spending "cuts" and revenues over TGEN YEARS. So they decide to rEALLY get the economy moving, and spend TEN TRILLION DOLLARWS more this next year than the government is taking in. This means creating a TEN TRILLION DOLLAR deficit/debt in one year. Is this a problem. According to LIARS TimGeitner (Treasury Secretary) and Ben Bernanke (Fed Chariman)--along with CNBC and all of those others--this is NOT A PROBLEM, so lonkg as you "pay for" that ten trillion dollars in DEBT wyou have just created, over ten years. Liar-in-Chie Obama repreats this lie almost every day--saying that his "jobs bill" is "fully paid for". ...............................................................................................................................................Sorry, I fell on the floor, laughing, and my fingers went out of control As lyou know, I cna't really proofread or spell check, because of my eyesight, so I just have to leave this the way it is.
Thus, in our hypothetical (where we have no debt and no deficit, but intend to pass a "jobs bill" that CREATES a ten trillion dollar deficit), Congress and the President "offset"..................................................................................Sorry, could not control the laughter agai--"offset" teh ten trillion dollar deficit for the next year with tgen trillion dollars in deficit'cuts" over the next ten years. Of course, the "cuts" are not in actual spending, but in PROJECTED spending, meaning that we will ave deficits for almost ALL of the nextt ten years somewhere close to the same ten trillin dollars (adding some portion of ten trillion dollars to our debt each year). It does not even matter that the "cuts" will probably nbot even take place (unless the final collapse occurs in our country, and we become Greece),.
You say this is absurd? You say that we could not possibly "fford" to do this, even though we SAY that we are taking care of our "short-term" deficit problem with our "long-term" "solution"? You are exactly right. But that (my hypothetical) is EXACTY what we are doing NOW, and what Obama, Bernanke and Geitner are LYING about (when they say we have a "short-term" jobs problem and a "long-term" deficit problem).
Message to Bernanke and Geitner (not to mention Obama and the GOP); "Short-term" deficits CREATE a "long-term" deficit problem, AND a "short-term" deficit problem. It is an outright LIE to say that you can "pay for" a "hsort-term" deficit with "long-term" "cuts" in the defict. If you don't believe this, then you need to carefully consider my hypothetical again.
You still doubt me? You really ae a fool, aren't you? What is our DEBT now? Right. It is approximately 15 TRILLION dollars, except that only somewhat more than 10 TRILLLION dollars of that debut are "real", because they represent money we owe ourselves (government to government debt). Thus, we have done exactly what my hypothetical says, except that we have done it over a limited number of years, instead of ONE. Oh, I realize we already had a debt, but the fact is that the vast majority of this debt has been created in the past ten lyears. And, yet, "we" (the liars I have identified, including the GOP) want to "pay for" ADDITIONS to the current deficits/debt by "paying for' those additons over the next ten years. That is EXACTLY my hypothetical, and it make sno difference whether we created this more than ten trillion dollar debt in one year or not. It is an absurd LIE to say that we are "paying for" ANY ADDITIN to current deficits by "cutting" the deficit (not the debt) over the next ten years. To call tis an Orwellian Big Lie ("1984" style) is to be too kind. This is one of the most outragous lies ever attempted on the American public--especially outrageous because ALL of our politicians seem to participate in this lie, and ALL of our financial 'experts".
It is enough to make you weep. When yoiu here a politician, or media LIAR, say thqat we will "pay for' this ridiculous, GIMMITCK/fraud of a payroll tax cut" with FUTURE deficit" "cuts", realize lthat you are hearing from a LIEAR, and that I am BEGGIN you NEVER to vote for such a person (as I will not vote for Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or most of the GOP members of Congress, as I willl not vote for Barack Obama or any leftist Democrat).
We need EVERY DIME of deficit "cuts' in the future to "pay for' the government we have now. Anyone who has the unmitigated gall to even quesitn this obviuos fact should NOT be representing us ANYWHERE . They should al lbe DEFEATED.
With this kind of Big Lie (one among many) out there, the media asks me to worry about Herman Cain's "adultery" (or vague, non-criminal "sexual harrassment")???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give me a break. No, I won't worry about it with Newt Gingrich either. Too bad I have so many REAL issues with Newt. Nope. I have told you Chrisitans out there, accurately, that the media (and leftist politicians, along with some "rightest" onews) are trying to USE your supposed inability to practice Christian FORGIVENESS (and your other religious beliefs) to get you to BETRAY your own best intersts. Now I can't say it is in your best interest to support Newt, but I am still endorsing Herman Cain. You Chrisitans (real Christians, and not FALSE Christians like Barack Obama, who Bill Maher and I agree is NOT a Christian)need to stop letting the EVIL people of the media lead you around by the nose. You need to vote for people who will advance your agenda, and not worry about irrelevancies (as to this political agenda) like adultery. Free advice from an agnostic. You should take it. I do feel for you if you see NO real GOP contender wo will advance your agenda. But that does not change the fact that you should ignore these back fence gossip SMEARS (admitted or not, as the SMEAR is the LIE that these tings are important, or "fair").
P.S. As mentined in the article itself, no proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Deficit lies? Here is where the massive VIDEOTAPE (or digital now) comes in. Politician after politician, and ALL of CNBC (with the possible exception of Rick Santelli), are on record as saying: "We are gong to 'pay for' short-term deficits with long-term deficit 'cuts'". This is an OBVIOUS LIE ("paying for" short-term deficits with long-term deficit "cuts"). Yep . I am calling Ben Bernanke a LIEAR (in addition to being The Worst Failrue in the History of World Finance). President Obama mainstains his position as Liar-in-Chief. But Jon Kyle, and almost every other GOP (Grand, Outdated Party) politician is a LIAR. Chuck Schumer is a LIAR. So is Cris Wallace (the unfair and unbalanced network--indeed the whole network). Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are LIARS. Bascially all of teh GOP Presidential candidates are LIARS. Doubt me? Never do that!!!!!!!!!!
Let us assume we are at the end of the Clinton years, with a Gingrich House, and the budget is "balanced". Let us even assume (hard as this may be on your imagination) that we have NO debt. In other words, we are assuming a clean slate, for the puropose of TESTING (like a "stress test" on banks) this "theory" that we can "pay for' short-term ADDITIONS to the deifict iwt h "long-term "cuts". This is actually the most FAVORABLE "test" we can make for the "theory", since it is rally obvious that it is absurd to suggest taht we can" pay for" ADDITIONS to the deficit when we are not parying for" teh government we have BEFORE the additions to the deficits.
Okay. We have (assumption) no deebt and no deficit. We have a balanced budget. But Democrat and GOP politicians notice that their "rules" say that we can "pay for" a deficit with spending "cuts" and revenues over TGEN YEARS. So they decide to rEALLY get the economy moving, and spend TEN TRILLION DOLLARWS more this next year than the government is taking in. This means creating a TEN TRILLION DOLLAR deficit/debt in one year. Is this a problem. According to LIARS TimGeitner (Treasury Secretary) and Ben Bernanke (Fed Chariman)--along with CNBC and all of those others--this is NOT A PROBLEM, so lonkg as you "pay for" that ten trillion dollars in DEBT wyou have just created, over ten years. Liar-in-Chie Obama repreats this lie almost every day--saying that his "jobs bill" is "fully paid for". ...............................................................................................................................................Sorry, I fell on the floor, laughing, and my fingers went out of control As lyou know, I cna't really proofread or spell check, because of my eyesight, so I just have to leave this the way it is.
Thus, in our hypothetical (where we have no debt and no deficit, but intend to pass a "jobs bill" that CREATES a ten trillion dollar deficit), Congress and the President "offset"..................................................................................Sorry, could not control the laughter agai--"offset" teh ten trillion dollar deficit for the next year with tgen trillion dollars in deficit'cuts" over the next ten years. Of course, the "cuts" are not in actual spending, but in PROJECTED spending, meaning that we will ave deficits for almost ALL of the nextt ten years somewhere close to the same ten trillin dollars (adding some portion of ten trillion dollars to our debt each year). It does not even matter that the "cuts" will probably nbot even take place (unless the final collapse occurs in our country, and we become Greece),.
You say this is absurd? You say that we could not possibly "fford" to do this, even though we SAY that we are taking care of our "short-term" deficit problem with our "long-term" "solution"? You are exactly right. But that (my hypothetical) is EXACTY what we are doing NOW, and what Obama, Bernanke and Geitner are LYING about (when they say we have a "short-term" jobs problem and a "long-term" deficit problem).
Message to Bernanke and Geitner (not to mention Obama and the GOP); "Short-term" deficits CREATE a "long-term" deficit problem, AND a "short-term" deficit problem. It is an outright LIE to say that you can "pay for" a "hsort-term" deficit with "long-term" "cuts" in the defict. If you don't believe this, then you need to carefully consider my hypothetical again.
You still doubt me? You really ae a fool, aren't you? What is our DEBT now? Right. It is approximately 15 TRILLION dollars, except that only somewhat more than 10 TRILLLION dollars of that debut are "real", because they represent money we owe ourselves (government to government debt). Thus, we have done exactly what my hypothetical says, except that we have done it over a limited number of years, instead of ONE. Oh, I realize we already had a debt, but the fact is that the vast majority of this debt has been created in the past ten lyears. And, yet, "we" (the liars I have identified, including the GOP) want to "pay for" ADDITIONS to the current deficits/debt by "paying for' those additons over the next ten years. That is EXACTLY my hypothetical, and it make sno difference whether we created this more than ten trillion dollar debt in one year or not. It is an absurd LIE to say that we are "paying for" ANY ADDITIN to current deficits by "cutting" the deficit (not the debt) over the next ten years. To call tis an Orwellian Big Lie ("1984" style) is to be too kind. This is one of the most outragous lies ever attempted on the American public--especially outrageous because ALL of our politicians seem to participate in this lie, and ALL of our financial 'experts".
It is enough to make you weep. When yoiu here a politician, or media LIAR, say thqat we will "pay for' this ridiculous, GIMMITCK/fraud of a payroll tax cut" with FUTURE deficit" "cuts", realize lthat you are hearing from a LIEAR, and that I am BEGGIN you NEVER to vote for such a person (as I will not vote for Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or most of the GOP members of Congress, as I willl not vote for Barack Obama or any leftist Democrat).
We need EVERY DIME of deficit "cuts' in the future to "pay for' the government we have now. Anyone who has the unmitigated gall to even quesitn this obviuos fact should NOT be representing us ANYWHERE . They should al lbe DEFEATED.
With this kind of Big Lie (one among many) out there, the media asks me to worry about Herman Cain's "adultery" (or vague, non-criminal "sexual harrassment")???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give me a break. No, I won't worry about it with Newt Gingrich either. Too bad I have so many REAL issues with Newt. Nope. I have told you Chrisitans out there, accurately, that the media (and leftist politicians, along with some "rightest" onews) are trying to USE your supposed inability to practice Christian FORGIVENESS (and your other religious beliefs) to get you to BETRAY your own best intersts. Now I can't say it is in your best interest to support Newt, but I am still endorsing Herman Cain. You Chrisitans (real Christians, and not FALSE Christians like Barack Obama, who Bill Maher and I agree is NOT a Christian)need to stop letting the EVIL people of the media lead you around by the nose. You need to vote for people who will advance your agenda, and not worry about irrelevancies (as to this political agenda) like adultery. Free advice from an agnostic. You should take it. I do feel for you if you see NO real GOP contender wo will advance your agenda. But that does not change the fact that you should ignore these back fence gossip SMEARS (admitted or not, as the SMEAR is the LIE that these tings are important, or "fair").
P.S. As mentined in the article itself, no proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Romney, Obama and the Lying Hypocrites of CNN and CNN and the Mainstream Media
Senator Obbama, 2998 campaign: "If We keep talkaing about the economy, we are gong to lose"
AP liears (2011-today): "The ad fails to acknowlege that Obama was QUTOING the campaign of hi sopponet, John McCain." You willl remember the finmal resut of my Sodm and Gomorrah search for an honst, competent AP reporter: NO such creature exists, and they are ALL LIARS (as well as being incompetent).
What the AP is referencing is a Rommneyu ad featureing audio of Obama. However, you are a LIAR (who wither works for the AP, or should aply for a maiisnstream media job) if you say that Obama was QUTOING John MCain, or theofficial position of his campaign. What Obaama was doing is exactly what Romney is dokning: Characerizing teh McCain camaping being unable to run on the GOP recordon the economy.
It does not matter whether it is CNN, MSNBC, or any otehr lefat wing propaganda outfit, ALL of the DMOOCRATIC "strategy" assertions over the past 6 months have been exactly the SAME as what Obama was asserting about McCain in 2008: "Obama will run AGAINST the GOp, and Congrss, and nnot ont he econmy (because he can't)." I assure you, becuaes I have heard it time and time again, bhtat Democrats have said this MORE DIRECTLY thatn McCain really ever said it, or than his campaign really said it. But teh principle is the SAME. Indeed, this blog quoted--int he past week--a Democratic "strategist" who AGREED with CNN that Democrats were going to make this eleciton about CHARACTGER (in other words, character assassination), rather than about Obama's record. EVERY media/Democatic strategis has said thaty Obama is NOT going to run "on his record on the economy", but on the idea that the GOP woul dbe WORSE--then sfiting to class warfare, personal attacks and the question fo whether you really want to go back to the Bush eyars (really the OBM/Democrat ytears for the fatal last tow yoyears of teh Bush Presidency)."
Do oyu see why Romeny is RIGHT not to "apologize" (so rar), annd to DEFEND, his CLEVER ad. Is not the Romney ad a clever way to ATTACK this "stragtegy" by Obama of ignoring his failure on the economy? Sure it is. But is not the audio in the Romney ad out of context, because Obama was characterizing his OPPONENT rather than talkng about the current situ;a;ton.? Nope, That is the beauty of teh Romnney ad. That is the POINT. The pint is that Obama was RIGHT in 2008 when hes said that McCain could not afford to talk about the economy, and Obama is ding EXACTLY THE SAME THING, FOR THE SAME REASON, in 20111 and 2012. In other words, the very attack on the Romney ad makes the main ponit of the Romney ad, and it is a FAIR pont. Obama is at least as much responsible for the sad shape of teh economy noew as McCain was in 2008 (McCain , of course, being merely 1 of 100 Senators, which was also true of OBAMA--wwho was part of teh DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY when teh economyt collapsed).
Nope It is a clever ad. IN today's world of policitcs, where the MEDIA runs character assassination "ads" (masquerading as "news') every single day, this knid of ad is more than fair., It is a valid way of making a vali point. the idea that the AD has to "spell out" excatly what I have said abouve is INSANE. To say that the media apppleies his kind of standard to Obama/Democrat ads is more than insane. It is a LIE, told by parisan liars who lie more blatantly and indefensibly every single day (referring to the mainstream media, if I hav to spell THAT out for you).
I will probably make a separate article about Joh King, one of the WORST LIARS AND HHPOCRITES to eve live, on CNN, The Liar Network (King doing a "rant" on a Romney ad-- maybe this one--wchih again was more of an attack on CNN than on Romney).
P.S. Noo proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
AP liears (2011-today): "The ad fails to acknowlege that Obama was QUTOING the campaign of hi sopponet, John McCain." You willl remember the finmal resut of my Sodm and Gomorrah search for an honst, competent AP reporter: NO such creature exists, and they are ALL LIARS (as well as being incompetent).
What the AP is referencing is a Rommneyu ad featureing audio of Obama. However, you are a LIAR (who wither works for the AP, or should aply for a maiisnstream media job) if you say that Obama was QUTOING John MCain, or theofficial position of his campaign. What Obaama was doing is exactly what Romney is dokning: Characerizing teh McCain camaping being unable to run on the GOP recordon the economy.
It does not matter whether it is CNN, MSNBC, or any otehr lefat wing propaganda outfit, ALL of the DMOOCRATIC "strategy" assertions over the past 6 months have been exactly the SAME as what Obama was asserting about McCain in 2008: "Obama will run AGAINST the GOp, and Congrss, and nnot ont he econmy (because he can't)." I assure you, becuaes I have heard it time and time again, bhtat Democrats have said this MORE DIRECTLY thatn McCain really ever said it, or than his campaign really said it. But teh principle is the SAME. Indeed, this blog quoted--int he past week--a Democratic "strategist" who AGREED with CNN that Democrats were going to make this eleciton about CHARACTGER (in other words, character assassination), rather than about Obama's record. EVERY media/Democatic strategis has said thaty Obama is NOT going to run "on his record on the economy", but on the idea that the GOP woul dbe WORSE--then sfiting to class warfare, personal attacks and the question fo whether you really want to go back to the Bush eyars (really the OBM/Democrat ytears for the fatal last tow yoyears of teh Bush Presidency)."
Do oyu see why Romeny is RIGHT not to "apologize" (so rar), annd to DEFEND, his CLEVER ad. Is not the Romney ad a clever way to ATTACK this "stragtegy" by Obama of ignoring his failure on the economy? Sure it is. But is not the audio in the Romney ad out of context, because Obama was characterizing his OPPONENT rather than talkng about the current situ;a;ton.? Nope, That is the beauty of teh Romnney ad. That is the POINT. The pint is that Obama was RIGHT in 2008 when hes said that McCain could not afford to talk about the economy, and Obama is ding EXACTLY THE SAME THING, FOR THE SAME REASON, in 20111 and 2012. In other words, the very attack on the Romney ad makes the main ponit of the Romney ad, and it is a FAIR pont. Obama is at least as much responsible for the sad shape of teh economy noew as McCain was in 2008 (McCain , of course, being merely 1 of 100 Senators, which was also true of OBAMA--wwho was part of teh DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY when teh economyt collapsed).
Nope It is a clever ad. IN today's world of policitcs, where the MEDIA runs character assassination "ads" (masquerading as "news') every single day, this knid of ad is more than fair., It is a valid way of making a vali point. the idea that the AD has to "spell out" excatly what I have said abouve is INSANE. To say that the media apppleies his kind of standard to Obama/Democrat ads is more than insane. It is a LIE, told by parisan liars who lie more blatantly and indefensibly every single day (referring to the mainstream media, if I hav to spell THAT out for you).
I will probably make a separate article about Joh King, one of the WORST LIARS AND HHPOCRITES to eve live, on CNN, The Liar Network (King doing a "rant" on a Romney ad-- maybe this one--wchih again was more of an attack on CNN than on Romney).
P.S. Noo proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
GOP Debate: Definitive Analysis
My 89 year old mother, whose hero is FDR because she grew up in the Great Depression, favors Mitt Romney. And, at 89, she sees right through ewt Gingrich--who is so smart he outsmarts himslelf, and is unable to come up with a consistent philosophy of government that he is not willing to CHANGE tomorrow (defending the NEW poisition with just as much intelligence and knwledge as the old, exactly opposite positioin---reminding me of a SMARTER Barack Obama).
The obvius reason I mention Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich is taht they were the obvious WINNERS of tonigh'ts BOP (Grand OUtdated Party) debate. Indded, ALL of teh GOP candidates did better than Barack Oba has shown he can do, with the exception of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman. Huntsman has not chance, and Ron Paul's idiosyncratic "foreign policy" was DISCREDITED at Pearl Harbor (even though it has the virtue of being principled and internally consistent). But, as usual, no one laid a glove on Romney, and Gingrich--also as usual--shbowed himself INCREDIBLY knowledgeable and teh smartest person in the room. Quoting Maxwell Smart: "If only he (Gingrich) had used al of that talent for good instead of eveil" .Now "evil" may be tooo sgrong a word, but I can assure you (as my 89 year old mother has dtermined without much input from me) that Gingrich is a man of NO real principles. That may be why he is such a good debater. He can take ANY side of a debate, and support it with intelligence and knowledge. I don't turst him at all, and can't vote for him againt anybody. Nevertheless, he keeps WINNING these debates, although Romney keeps holding hi sown.
Gingrich, however, made a major misstep, Romney was right. Allowing ANY kind of amnestry, except on suome kind of rare basis, is merely a MAGNET for further illegal immigration. What Gingrich pulled was the old debating TRICK of taking an EXTREME example, and then trying to extend it to support an entirely different positon. Gingrich talked aobut not deporting anyone who has been here 25 years, belongs to the local church, and has 10 children and 30 grandchildren (only a slight exaggeratioin as to number of children and grandchildren, otherwise an accurate description of what Gingrich sadi). ToO CLEVER BY MORE THAN HALF, AND ILLUSTRATIVE OF WHY I CANNOT SUPPORT GINGRICH. Gingrich then asserted that he had "proven" why MILLIONS (not all 11 or 12 millin, but MILLIONS) of illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay here. What is wrong with that? There are NOT millions (more like handfuls) of illegl immigrants who fit Gingrich's description, and Gingrich knows it. Did I just calll Gingrich dishonest? Of course, although this is a rather standard politician's/debater's dishonesty. But that is not even the main problem, or the main dishonesty. Gingrich brought up the Reagan amnesty, without seeming to realize that it DESTROYED his own hishonest argument.
WHY did the Reagan amnesty fail, BESIDES the fact that Reagan was misled that we would control our borders and illegal immigration thereafter? It FAILED because of the very thing Gingrich is ADVOCATING. Gingrcih was adovocating some kind of "board' to "evalaute" EACH person as to whether they "should" be allowed to "stay" in this country. That is INISANE and DISHONEST. There is no way to actually DO thatr. It is IMPOSSIBLE, It means no one gets deported, and probably everyone gets to stay. That is what happened in the Regan amnesty. As Gingrich said, Reagan expected a few hundred thousand to "qaualify", while 3 million wre granted amnesty. WHY? It was because the INS couuld NOT handle the "investigation" as to who "qualiified" (seven years in thhis coutnry, or someting like that, with a clean record) for amnesty and who did not. This fianlly resulted in basically a RUBBER STAMP, buecase the system was INCAPBLE of hadling treating ever case of illegal immigratin like it was a MURDER TRIAL, with endless appeals and vague "facts". No, I ma afraid I do not thingk this is "naive' on Gingrich's part. Gingrich KNOWS this, and is being DISHONEST. There is NOW WAY we could ever examine each illegal immigrant separately to "research" whether they sould be allowed to stay in this country> "Belong to the local church" my eye. Newt, llyou should be ASHAMED. If you actually think that this kind of CHARACTER TRIAL could be held, then there is NO WAY you should be President of the United States. Of course, you DO NOT think taht, which--unfortunaely--means that there is NO WAY you should be President of the United States. (By the way, Gingrich was right on one thing on illegal immigration, and one thing only: we should be willing to grant citizenship to illegal immigarants who COMPLET E a term of service int eh Untited States military, and should be willing to let the military determine who they are willnng to accept, with immunity from dportation so long as they are in the United Sates military.)
Herman Cain did fine, but he is unable to conceal that he is neither comfortable nor especially knowledgeable with foreign policy questions. This blog still endorses Herman Cain, because of what I ahve said. If you WANT a "non-politicina" to be President of the Untited States--as a lesson to the politicians, if nothign else, and because the politicians have made such a hash of things--then you MUST be willing to accept gaps in "knowledge" and experience. Otherwise, it will NEVER happen, and you might as well not tell pollster that you want it to happen (knowing that you will never have the COURAGE to let it happen, because you will always be too nervous about the "lack of experiecnce" of the non-politician; unless it is somebody like Barack Obama, where the MEDIA REFUSES TO VEN PRETEND "SCRUTINY"). As I have said, Cain is a longshot to get the nomination, or be President. But I remain convinced that it would be one of the BEST things that ever happened to this country for him to become President. No, I am not worried about "foreign policy". Presidents heavily rely on adivsors there anyway. And I think his general instincts are sound. But Cain did not come close to "competing" with Romney and Gingrich.
Perry was fine (for a change). Bachmann was fine. Santrum was fine. Still, Gingrich and Romney "won"--not even close. That is how you have to "judge" teh debae, AS A DEBBATE. Gingrich's problem is that he may really have LOST, because of that "too cleveer" attempt to be dishoneston illegal immigration (and have it ALL ways) I am not sure just honw many peole will see thourgh this, like my 89 year old mother, but I have a feeling Gingrich is underestimating (as usual) the number of peoile he CAN FOOL with sheer virtuosity in argument. I have said Gingrich will not be Presidetn, and I stand by tath assessment. However, I also stand by the assessment that the MEDIA has managed to make the most LIKELY nomineee either Ginrich or Romney (heavy favorite, in my view). Thos war probably the two STRONGEST candidates against Obama. Is that really what the media WANTED when they conducted tgheir SMEARS fo Cain, Bachmann and Perry? I wonder. Perry is doing better, but I still think it is to late.
Romney will NOT win Iowa (absent an imposion from EVERYNE else), because he does not DARE risk a major effort in Iowa. Romney will win New Hampshire (or else his is done), and he will. Then it comes down to whether Romney can pull away, or whether there will be enough candidaes left standing to make a DEADLOCK possible. I don't count out the possibility that Gingrich could roll over everyone, if he can actually put it all together and stop his inclination to be "too clever". But I just don't see it. But I don't see ANY other candidate, besides Gingrich, taking this away from Romney at any early state. TheBEST teh otehr candidates can hope for is to create enough of a DEADLOCK that it will become obvius taht Romney is not going to make it, with th eidea that the other cnadidates can build LATE MOMENTUM to take them to the nominatioin. Right notw, I just don'st see a path there for anyone except Romney and Gingrich, with Cain now the one with the outside chance. I continue to see teh POSSIBILITY (although not probablity) of a DEADLOCK all of teh way to the convention (especailly with the "new" proportional representation rules on apportioning delegates).
Thre you have it: the definitive analysis of where the GOP is right now, without ONCE mentioning irrelevant polls. Yep. The incompetent media STILL citing polls as if they mean something, because they are so incompetent that they have nootehr wa of "covering" an election. They do so, despite what has happened this electin (and election after election) to show polls totallyl useless (especially until the very time of the vote). This blog could never be that incompetetn. Sure, none of this article is very original, but you will get few other HONEST analyses of teh debate, or of teh status of the BOP race. I don't even think that there is any questin about most of teh above analysis being right, and yet you will rarely see it ut this diretly and honestly. Modest, aren't I?
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
The obvius reason I mention Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich is taht they were the obvious WINNERS of tonigh'ts BOP (Grand OUtdated Party) debate. Indded, ALL of teh GOP candidates did better than Barack Oba has shown he can do, with the exception of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman. Huntsman has not chance, and Ron Paul's idiosyncratic "foreign policy" was DISCREDITED at Pearl Harbor (even though it has the virtue of being principled and internally consistent). But, as usual, no one laid a glove on Romney, and Gingrich--also as usual--shbowed himself INCREDIBLY knowledgeable and teh smartest person in the room. Quoting Maxwell Smart: "If only he (Gingrich) had used al of that talent for good instead of eveil" .Now "evil" may be tooo sgrong a word, but I can assure you (as my 89 year old mother has dtermined without much input from me) that Gingrich is a man of NO real principles. That may be why he is such a good debater. He can take ANY side of a debate, and support it with intelligence and knowledge. I don't turst him at all, and can't vote for him againt anybody. Nevertheless, he keeps WINNING these debates, although Romney keeps holding hi sown.
Gingrich, however, made a major misstep, Romney was right. Allowing ANY kind of amnestry, except on suome kind of rare basis, is merely a MAGNET for further illegal immigration. What Gingrich pulled was the old debating TRICK of taking an EXTREME example, and then trying to extend it to support an entirely different positon. Gingrich talked aobut not deporting anyone who has been here 25 years, belongs to the local church, and has 10 children and 30 grandchildren (only a slight exaggeratioin as to number of children and grandchildren, otherwise an accurate description of what Gingrich sadi). ToO CLEVER BY MORE THAN HALF, AND ILLUSTRATIVE OF WHY I CANNOT SUPPORT GINGRICH. Gingrich then asserted that he had "proven" why MILLIONS (not all 11 or 12 millin, but MILLIONS) of illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay here. What is wrong with that? There are NOT millions (more like handfuls) of illegl immigrants who fit Gingrich's description, and Gingrich knows it. Did I just calll Gingrich dishonest? Of course, although this is a rather standard politician's/debater's dishonesty. But that is not even the main problem, or the main dishonesty. Gingrich brought up the Reagan amnesty, without seeming to realize that it DESTROYED his own hishonest argument.
WHY did the Reagan amnesty fail, BESIDES the fact that Reagan was misled that we would control our borders and illegal immigration thereafter? It FAILED because of the very thing Gingrich is ADVOCATING. Gingrcih was adovocating some kind of "board' to "evalaute" EACH person as to whether they "should" be allowed to "stay" in this country. That is INISANE and DISHONEST. There is no way to actually DO thatr. It is IMPOSSIBLE, It means no one gets deported, and probably everyone gets to stay. That is what happened in the Regan amnesty. As Gingrich said, Reagan expected a few hundred thousand to "qaualify", while 3 million wre granted amnesty. WHY? It was because the INS couuld NOT handle the "investigation" as to who "qualiified" (seven years in thhis coutnry, or someting like that, with a clean record) for amnesty and who did not. This fianlly resulted in basically a RUBBER STAMP, buecase the system was INCAPBLE of hadling treating ever case of illegal immigratin like it was a MURDER TRIAL, with endless appeals and vague "facts". No, I ma afraid I do not thingk this is "naive' on Gingrich's part. Gingrich KNOWS this, and is being DISHONEST. There is NOW WAY we could ever examine each illegal immigrant separately to "research" whether they sould be allowed to stay in this country> "Belong to the local church" my eye. Newt, llyou should be ASHAMED. If you actually think that this kind of CHARACTER TRIAL could be held, then there is NO WAY you should be President of the United States. Of course, you DO NOT think taht, which--unfortunaely--means that there is NO WAY you should be President of the United States. (By the way, Gingrich was right on one thing on illegal immigration, and one thing only: we should be willing to grant citizenship to illegal immigarants who COMPLET E a term of service int eh Untited States military, and should be willing to let the military determine who they are willnng to accept, with immunity from dportation so long as they are in the United Sates military.)
Herman Cain did fine, but he is unable to conceal that he is neither comfortable nor especially knowledgeable with foreign policy questions. This blog still endorses Herman Cain, because of what I ahve said. If you WANT a "non-politicina" to be President of the Untited States--as a lesson to the politicians, if nothign else, and because the politicians have made such a hash of things--then you MUST be willing to accept gaps in "knowledge" and experience. Otherwise, it will NEVER happen, and you might as well not tell pollster that you want it to happen (knowing that you will never have the COURAGE to let it happen, because you will always be too nervous about the "lack of experiecnce" of the non-politician; unless it is somebody like Barack Obama, where the MEDIA REFUSES TO VEN PRETEND "SCRUTINY"). As I have said, Cain is a longshot to get the nomination, or be President. But I remain convinced that it would be one of the BEST things that ever happened to this country for him to become President. No, I am not worried about "foreign policy". Presidents heavily rely on adivsors there anyway. And I think his general instincts are sound. But Cain did not come close to "competing" with Romney and Gingrich.
Perry was fine (for a change). Bachmann was fine. Santrum was fine. Still, Gingrich and Romney "won"--not even close. That is how you have to "judge" teh debae, AS A DEBBATE. Gingrich's problem is that he may really have LOST, because of that "too cleveer" attempt to be dishoneston illegal immigration (and have it ALL ways) I am not sure just honw many peole will see thourgh this, like my 89 year old mother, but I have a feeling Gingrich is underestimating (as usual) the number of peoile he CAN FOOL with sheer virtuosity in argument. I have said Gingrich will not be Presidetn, and I stand by tath assessment. However, I also stand by the assessment that the MEDIA has managed to make the most LIKELY nomineee either Ginrich or Romney (heavy favorite, in my view). Thos war probably the two STRONGEST candidates against Obama. Is that really what the media WANTED when they conducted tgheir SMEARS fo Cain, Bachmann and Perry? I wonder. Perry is doing better, but I still think it is to late.
Romney will NOT win Iowa (absent an imposion from EVERYNE else), because he does not DARE risk a major effort in Iowa. Romney will win New Hampshire (or else his is done), and he will. Then it comes down to whether Romney can pull away, or whether there will be enough candidaes left standing to make a DEADLOCK possible. I don't count out the possibility that Gingrich could roll over everyone, if he can actually put it all together and stop his inclination to be "too clever". But I just don't see it. But I don't see ANY other candidate, besides Gingrich, taking this away from Romney at any early state. TheBEST teh otehr candidates can hope for is to create enough of a DEADLOCK that it will become obvius taht Romney is not going to make it, with th eidea that the other cnadidates can build LATE MOMENTUM to take them to the nominatioin. Right notw, I just don'st see a path there for anyone except Romney and Gingrich, with Cain now the one with the outside chance. I continue to see teh POSSIBILITY (although not probablity) of a DEADLOCK all of teh way to the convention (especailly with the "new" proportional representation rules on apportioning delegates).
Thre you have it: the definitive analysis of where the GOP is right now, without ONCE mentioning irrelevant polls. Yep. The incompetent media STILL citing polls as if they mean something, because they are so incompetent that they have nootehr wa of "covering" an election. They do so, despite what has happened this electin (and election after election) to show polls totallyl useless (especially until the very time of the vote). This blog could never be that incompetetn. Sure, none of this article is very original, but you will get few other HONEST analyses of teh debate, or of teh status of the BOP race. I don't even think that there is any questin about most of teh above analysis being right, and yet you will rarely see it ut this diretly and honestly. Modest, aren't I?
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Economy Stalls, Media Lies Continue (Boycott AT&T and Yahoo)
"Economy grew at 2% rate in third quarter"
The above is the LYING headline from the despicable Associated Press, as featured on AT&T/Yahoo.
How can the headline be a lie? Isn't the statement accurate? Ah. that is whre yu do not understand media PROPAGANDA and LIES, which is why you need me.
The "staetement' is accurate, but NOT the "news". Taht is the LIE. The despicable A)/AT&T/Yahoo are rpresenting that the NEWS today is that the economy "grew" 2% in the thrid quarter. That is a lie. Here is the correct headline: "Growth in the third quarter revisded down to an anemic 2%."
Yoiu would never know it from the headline, but there was NOT an "announement" today of "growth" for the thrid quarter. Tath at announcement was made a month ago, and was trumpeted as a "much better than expected" 2.5% GDP growth. What happened today was that the previous 2.5% number was REVISED downward to 2%--a whole 20% downward revision in "groth" rate. That meakes all of those mainstream media stories--not tomention Obma Administration assertions that the economy was "fine"--FALSE. Those stories, that have reallly extended ove the previous month, wre based on a FALSE number (at least if today's number is accurate, and it is uposed to be more accurate than the original number). While 2% "growth" is "better" than the 1% "growth" for the first HALF of the year, it is hardly a major improvement.
And that is what has been heappening in th past month. Essentially BAD "news", shwoing a STALLED econmy, has been "spun" as "good news". Everyone is saying today that the downward revision in GDP was EXPECTED (although maybe not quite this much). If "expected", what does htat make the stories about how "good" the initially reported 2.5% rate was. In contrast, there have been reviions UPWARD in terms of jobs created, which have bbeen "hyped" as showing an "improving" job market. Hogwash. The REvISIONS merely show that these numbers--as this bog are told you--are WRITTEN ON WATER. None of these numbers mean much, except OVER TIME (really lots of time). For example, there was that month that "job growth" was reported as ZERO. Then came the revisionis. The very next month, that number was "revised" to a sEASONALLY ADJUSTED "growth" of 57,000 "jobs". As this blog has told you, there is a MARGIN OF ERROR in those "job growth" numbers of AT LEAST 100,000. The "seasonal adjustment" alone can cause the number to vary at least that much, depending on the formula yu use and whether the economy has CHANGED in terms of its exct seasonal 'pattern".
Then look at the ne unemployment calims. That nubmer reached 400,,000 at the end of last year, and reached a low in February of this year. In other words, the number of new unemployument calaims has NOT IMPROVED this entire year, and has been sTUCK right around 400,00 for A YEAR. In fact, it has been STUCK right at 400,000 for about two months. And the number can be DISTORTED by the HOLISDAY SEASON, where the "seasonal adjustment" is especailly suspect. Yet the media LIEARS have been telling you that initially reported numbers of 390,000 and 388,000 over the past two weeks--bEFORE those numbers are REVISED--represented the "lowest number in 7 months", and showed an "improving job market". Hogwash. There ha been NO CHANGE. The MARGIN OF ERROR is much more than the 10,0000 diefference between 400,0000 and 390,000, and we were at thes same level in FEBRUARY--when the economy was "gowring' the SLOWEST. How can this be? Wellk you can argue that there is a "lag", but I don't think that is it. Rather, the SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT variations make this weekly number UNRELIABE on a shrot term basis, which is alson true of the MONTHLY "job growth" numbers (as the HUGE "revisions' have proven). Unless the unemployment calims number goes down STEADLILY, by relatively large amounts (like toward 350,000,and then twoard 300,000), the weeky number is pretty meaningless. Oh, it idoes show ONE good thing: I think it is safe to say that the economy is not getting substantially WORSE (during the longest recession since the Great Depression, and the WORST "recovery"). That should provide you NO comfort, especially with events in Europe and around the world, becasuse we are CONSTANTLY on the EDGE of sinking into a further economic DECLINE from a poiint of essentially NO RECOVERY. That is very BAD. You might remember that the GDP growth, in the second half of 2009, was 4-5%. Since then, as the 'recovery" STALLED, we have NOT "been moving in the right direction".
Therefore, realizse lthat the media reproting of these constantly shifting, and unreliable, numbers is FALSE---especially when they try to make a "trnd" out of numbers which are really not showing a trend., and which are constantly being revised. Note that today's GDP revisoin did not represent any CHANGE in actual "growth". The "growth" was what it was. All that has CHANGED is the REPORTED number (showing you, as the employment numbers hav shwon you, especially the constantly revised monthly numbers, that the initially REPORTED number does not mean very much, except over time). The "seasonal adjustments" lone are so unreliabe that only MAJOR moves, over time, give these numbers any significance (in terms of a "trend"), Meanwhile, the economy remains STUCK in the same anemic place we have been since essentially January of 2010. Indeed, the unemployment rate has not essentially improved since July of 2009.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I do my best, by the way, to check the numbers as I type them, although I would never tell you that I never make a typo on the numbers. Taht is why I often repeat them more than once in an article.
The above is the LYING headline from the despicable Associated Press, as featured on AT&T/Yahoo.
How can the headline be a lie? Isn't the statement accurate? Ah. that is whre yu do not understand media PROPAGANDA and LIES, which is why you need me.
The "staetement' is accurate, but NOT the "news". Taht is the LIE. The despicable A)/AT&T/Yahoo are rpresenting that the NEWS today is that the economy "grew" 2% in the thrid quarter. That is a lie. Here is the correct headline: "Growth in the third quarter revisded down to an anemic 2%."
Yoiu would never know it from the headline, but there was NOT an "announement" today of "growth" for the thrid quarter. Tath at announcement was made a month ago, and was trumpeted as a "much better than expected" 2.5% GDP growth. What happened today was that the previous 2.5% number was REVISED downward to 2%--a whole 20% downward revision in "groth" rate. That meakes all of those mainstream media stories--not tomention Obma Administration assertions that the economy was "fine"--FALSE. Those stories, that have reallly extended ove the previous month, wre based on a FALSE number (at least if today's number is accurate, and it is uposed to be more accurate than the original number). While 2% "growth" is "better" than the 1% "growth" for the first HALF of the year, it is hardly a major improvement.
And that is what has been heappening in th past month. Essentially BAD "news", shwoing a STALLED econmy, has been "spun" as "good news". Everyone is saying today that the downward revision in GDP was EXPECTED (although maybe not quite this much). If "expected", what does htat make the stories about how "good" the initially reported 2.5% rate was. In contrast, there have been reviions UPWARD in terms of jobs created, which have bbeen "hyped" as showing an "improving" job market. Hogwash. The REvISIONS merely show that these numbers--as this bog are told you--are WRITTEN ON WATER. None of these numbers mean much, except OVER TIME (really lots of time). For example, there was that month that "job growth" was reported as ZERO. Then came the revisionis. The very next month, that number was "revised" to a sEASONALLY ADJUSTED "growth" of 57,000 "jobs". As this blog has told you, there is a MARGIN OF ERROR in those "job growth" numbers of AT LEAST 100,000. The "seasonal adjustment" alone can cause the number to vary at least that much, depending on the formula yu use and whether the economy has CHANGED in terms of its exct seasonal 'pattern".
Then look at the ne unemployment calims. That nubmer reached 400,,000 at the end of last year, and reached a low in February of this year. In other words, the number of new unemployument calaims has NOT IMPROVED this entire year, and has been sTUCK right around 400,00 for A YEAR. In fact, it has been STUCK right at 400,000 for about two months. And the number can be DISTORTED by the HOLISDAY SEASON, where the "seasonal adjustment" is especailly suspect. Yet the media LIEARS have been telling you that initially reported numbers of 390,000 and 388,000 over the past two weeks--bEFORE those numbers are REVISED--represented the "lowest number in 7 months", and showed an "improving job market". Hogwash. There ha been NO CHANGE. The MARGIN OF ERROR is much more than the 10,0000 diefference between 400,0000 and 390,000, and we were at thes same level in FEBRUARY--when the economy was "gowring' the SLOWEST. How can this be? Wellk you can argue that there is a "lag", but I don't think that is it. Rather, the SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT variations make this weekly number UNRELIABE on a shrot term basis, which is alson true of the MONTHLY "job growth" numbers (as the HUGE "revisions' have proven). Unless the unemployment calims number goes down STEADLILY, by relatively large amounts (like toward 350,000,and then twoard 300,000), the weeky number is pretty meaningless. Oh, it idoes show ONE good thing: I think it is safe to say that the economy is not getting substantially WORSE (during the longest recession since the Great Depression, and the WORST "recovery"). That should provide you NO comfort, especially with events in Europe and around the world, becasuse we are CONSTANTLY on the EDGE of sinking into a further economic DECLINE from a poiint of essentially NO RECOVERY. That is very BAD. You might remember that the GDP growth, in the second half of 2009, was 4-5%. Since then, as the 'recovery" STALLED, we have NOT "been moving in the right direction".
Therefore, realizse lthat the media reproting of these constantly shifting, and unreliable, numbers is FALSE---especially when they try to make a "trnd" out of numbers which are really not showing a trend., and which are constantly being revised. Note that today's GDP revisoin did not represent any CHANGE in actual "growth". The "growth" was what it was. All that has CHANGED is the REPORTED number (showing you, as the employment numbers hav shwon you, especially the constantly revised monthly numbers, that the initially REPORTED number does not mean very much, except over time). The "seasonal adjustments" lone are so unreliabe that only MAJOR moves, over time, give these numbers any significance (in terms of a "trend"), Meanwhile, the economy remains STUCK in the same anemic place we have been since essentially January of 2010. Indeed, the unemployment rate has not essentially improved since July of 2009.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I do my best, by the way, to check the numbers as I type them, although I would never tell you that I never make a typo on the numbers. Taht is why I often repeat them more than once in an article.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Bloomberg (Mayor of NYC) on the Bush Tax Cuts (Ayn Rand, Heroine)
You know that Obama/Democrat Big Lie on teh "Bush tax cuts": that they only benefitted the wealthy Well, Micheal Bloomberg, mayor of NYC, exploded that LIE today on CNN, as he advised Brack Obama what to do. This is amazing. I AGREED with Barack Obama and Bloomberg (only partially) in a single day. Amazing.
What Bloomberg said ws that President Obama has been exercising NO "leadership" (Duh!!!) Bloomberg asked: Why is Obama fooling with a "deal" on increased taxes. Obama and teh Democrats don't NEED the GOP to "increase revenue". The "Bush tax cuts" are already scheduled to EXPIRE, and all the Democrats have to do is let that happen. So--according to Blloomberg, and he is "right" in at least his numbers--all Obama has to do is figure out an EQUAL amounbt of spending "cuts" over ten years, and the budget will be balanced (lol--this is where the numbers get very soft, since no one really knows what the situation will really be ten years from now). Still, Bloombergn's numbers at least add up, given his assumptons and disregarding that Obama and the Democrats have NO INTENTION of actually "cutting' spending.
"Wait, Skip. That can't be. What is this fight about if the Democrats can jsut let the Bush tax cuts expire, and thereby increase government revenues 4 TRILLIN dollars. That is absurd. I ahve listented to Obama and the Democrats, along with listenting to CNN, MSNBC and the unfair and unbalanced network, and I KNOW that the Bush tax cuts only benefitted the rich. If that is so, why did Obama not simpy let the Bush tax cuts expire (vetoing any attempt to stop it, if he had to)?".
Ah, It is true that Bloomberg EXPOSED the Orwellian Big Lie of Obama and the Democrats. He made clear that he was referenceing ALL of the Bush era tax cuts. And Bloomberg did this on CNN, which has PUSHED theBig Lie (being The Liar Network) .As this blog has told you, and as Bloomberfg told CNN (which they will promptly forget), the Bush tax cuts did MUCH more than "benefit" the wealthy. MOAT of teh "benefit" went to the MIDDLE CLASS, and lowe income groups. If you simply let the Bush tqax cuts EXPIRE, you will nominally "raise" 4 TRILLION dollars over ten year.s. As this blog has told you, "only" 700 billin dollars of that would have come from peoiple making more than $200,000 a year (IF you consider those the 'wealthy", as it is another Big Lie that Obama and the Democrats are only going after millionaires and billionaires).
Bloomberg is right. If Obama and the Democrats were HONEST, they don't need ANY Republican votes to make EVERYONE pay that "fair share" they were paying under Clinton. All they have to do is let those Bush tax cuts expire. But Obama is NOT hoest. He is our Liar-in-Chief. Obama and the Democrats can REAPEAL the Bush tax cuts IN THEIR ENTIRETY by simply letting hem expire, as they COULD HAVE DONE at the end of 2010 (that was that "deal" which FIRST added 100 BILLINO to the deficit with that "temporary" , fraudulent "payroll tax cut"). In fact, if the GOP hd shown any COURAGE, tehy could have insisted upon a PERMANENT extension of the Bush tax cuts, and prevailed. But they have no courage, and set themselves up for the present "class warfare" battle. Obama and the Democrats, however, do not have the COURAGE to be HONEST about the Bush tax cuts. Nor do they have the courage to LET THEM DIE (incxluidng the benefits that did NOT go to the "rich", which Bloom berg watns to also let die--"fair share" of sacrifice from everyone, remember).
What did you say? Oh, that is right. Letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire would probably KILL teh economy. But SELECTIVELY taking away the part of those tax cuts that "went" (it's their money) to the "rich" will DESTROY this country, as we resort to CLASS WARFARE to try to finance an ever BIGGER government wilth an ever SMALLER number of people. Bloomberg is right, in that sense. It would be BETTER to let ALL of tgeh Bush tax cuts expire than to take away ONLY the "cuts' "given" to the "rich". Any other course leads us down teh road to ruin--the same road travelled by the Roman Republic, ancient Greece, and so many other peole who have traveleed that disastrous class warfare road.
No, we should no repeal/let die ANY of the Bush tax cuts. But look at whaat Obama and the Democrats are saying, and what Bloomberg is disuting. They are saying taht the CLINTON taxes (aftger Clinton had INCREASED the tax reates on the wealthy) are UNFAIR. That is absurd. Thre is NO excuse for making people earning more than $200,000 WORSE OFF than they were under Bill Clinton (which Democrats refer to as the "golden age"--with some turth as to overall results of the GOP Congress keeepng Colinton under control). You can see what Obama and teh Democrats are trying to accomplish with the Big Lie (besides winning elections). They are trying to--as I stated--limit basically the entire financing of our Federal Gvoernement to peole earning more than $200,000. As Blomberg, in effet, said, this CANNOT BE DONE. And it will leead to absolute disaster. IF you are going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, you should let them ALL expire. Otherwise, you are NOT "reversing' the Bush tax cuts. Rathre, you are deliberately trying to limit the peole "parying for" our ever expanding government to an EVER-SMALLER nubmer of people. Circa 1950, Ayn Rand called this attitude an attempt by the untalented masses to ENSLAVE the few. I once thought Ayn Rand wa pretty extreme. As with Ron Paul, I am warming more an dmore to her incredible intelligence (if not to her as a person, where she had more than a few faults).
Thus, you can see why I say I agreed with a lot of what Bloomberg said, although I do NOT agree with him that all of teh Bush tax curts should be allowed to EXPIRE (as Obama and the Demoocrats have FULL POWER to accomplish without a single GOP vote). At least Bloomberg is HONEST (on this, anyway) , and does not rely on the Big Lie. Her is simply wrong. Obama, letgitist Democrats and the mainstream media are BOTH wrong and DISHONEST. And what can you say about people so dtermined to undermine the foundations of this coutnry that they are DELIBERATELY promoting the idea that this is all about the "99%" AGAINST the "1%". I am not alone in regarding that as totally IMMORAL, as well as a totally disastrous adoption of teh most blatant class warfare.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checing (bad eyesight).
What Bloomberg said ws that President Obama has been exercising NO "leadership" (Duh!!!) Bloomberg asked: Why is Obama fooling with a "deal" on increased taxes. Obama and teh Democrats don't NEED the GOP to "increase revenue". The "Bush tax cuts" are already scheduled to EXPIRE, and all the Democrats have to do is let that happen. So--according to Blloomberg, and he is "right" in at least his numbers--all Obama has to do is figure out an EQUAL amounbt of spending "cuts" over ten years, and the budget will be balanced (lol--this is where the numbers get very soft, since no one really knows what the situation will really be ten years from now). Still, Bloombergn's numbers at least add up, given his assumptons and disregarding that Obama and the Democrats have NO INTENTION of actually "cutting' spending.
"Wait, Skip. That can't be. What is this fight about if the Democrats can jsut let the Bush tax cuts expire, and thereby increase government revenues 4 TRILLIN dollars. That is absurd. I ahve listented to Obama and the Democrats, along with listenting to CNN, MSNBC and the unfair and unbalanced network, and I KNOW that the Bush tax cuts only benefitted the rich. If that is so, why did Obama not simpy let the Bush tax cuts expire (vetoing any attempt to stop it, if he had to)?".
Ah, It is true that Bloomberg EXPOSED the Orwellian Big Lie of Obama and the Democrats. He made clear that he was referenceing ALL of the Bush era tax cuts. And Bloomberg did this on CNN, which has PUSHED theBig Lie (being The Liar Network) .As this blog has told you, and as Bloomberfg told CNN (which they will promptly forget), the Bush tax cuts did MUCH more than "benefit" the wealthy. MOAT of teh "benefit" went to the MIDDLE CLASS, and lowe income groups. If you simply let the Bush tqax cuts EXPIRE, you will nominally "raise" 4 TRILLION dollars over ten year.s. As this blog has told you, "only" 700 billin dollars of that would have come from peoiple making more than $200,000 a year (IF you consider those the 'wealthy", as it is another Big Lie that Obama and the Democrats are only going after millionaires and billionaires).
Bloomberg is right. If Obama and the Democrats were HONEST, they don't need ANY Republican votes to make EVERYONE pay that "fair share" they were paying under Clinton. All they have to do is let those Bush tax cuts expire. But Obama is NOT hoest. He is our Liar-in-Chief. Obama and the Democrats can REAPEAL the Bush tax cuts IN THEIR ENTIRETY by simply letting hem expire, as they COULD HAVE DONE at the end of 2010 (that was that "deal" which FIRST added 100 BILLINO to the deficit with that "temporary" , fraudulent "payroll tax cut"). In fact, if the GOP hd shown any COURAGE, tehy could have insisted upon a PERMANENT extension of the Bush tax cuts, and prevailed. But they have no courage, and set themselves up for the present "class warfare" battle. Obama and the Democrats, however, do not have the COURAGE to be HONEST about the Bush tax cuts. Nor do they have the courage to LET THEM DIE (incxluidng the benefits that did NOT go to the "rich", which Bloom berg watns to also let die--"fair share" of sacrifice from everyone, remember).
What did you say? Oh, that is right. Letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire would probably KILL teh economy. But SELECTIVELY taking away the part of those tax cuts that "went" (it's their money) to the "rich" will DESTROY this country, as we resort to CLASS WARFARE to try to finance an ever BIGGER government wilth an ever SMALLER number of people. Bloomberg is right, in that sense. It would be BETTER to let ALL of tgeh Bush tax cuts expire than to take away ONLY the "cuts' "given" to the "rich". Any other course leads us down teh road to ruin--the same road travelled by the Roman Republic, ancient Greece, and so many other peole who have traveleed that disastrous class warfare road.
No, we should no repeal/let die ANY of the Bush tax cuts. But look at whaat Obama and the Democrats are saying, and what Bloomberg is disuting. They are saying taht the CLINTON taxes (aftger Clinton had INCREASED the tax reates on the wealthy) are UNFAIR. That is absurd. Thre is NO excuse for making people earning more than $200,000 WORSE OFF than they were under Bill Clinton (which Democrats refer to as the "golden age"--with some turth as to overall results of the GOP Congress keeepng Colinton under control). You can see what Obama and teh Democrats are trying to accomplish with the Big Lie (besides winning elections). They are trying to--as I stated--limit basically the entire financing of our Federal Gvoernement to peole earning more than $200,000. As Blomberg, in effet, said, this CANNOT BE DONE. And it will leead to absolute disaster. IF you are going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, you should let them ALL expire. Otherwise, you are NOT "reversing' the Bush tax cuts. Rathre, you are deliberately trying to limit the peole "parying for" our ever expanding government to an EVER-SMALLER nubmer of people. Circa 1950, Ayn Rand called this attitude an attempt by the untalented masses to ENSLAVE the few. I once thought Ayn Rand wa pretty extreme. As with Ron Paul, I am warming more an dmore to her incredible intelligence (if not to her as a person, where she had more than a few faults).
Thus, you can see why I say I agreed with a lot of what Bloomberg said, although I do NOT agree with him that all of teh Bush tax curts should be allowed to EXPIRE (as Obama and the Demoocrats have FULL POWER to accomplish without a single GOP vote). At least Bloomberg is HONEST (on this, anyway) , and does not rely on the Big Lie. Her is simply wrong. Obama, letgitist Democrats and the mainstream media are BOTH wrong and DISHONEST. And what can you say about people so dtermined to undermine the foundations of this coutnry that they are DELIBERATELY promoting the idea that this is all about the "99%" AGAINST the "1%". I am not alone in regarding that as totally IMMORAL, as well as a totally disastrous adoption of teh most blatant class warfare.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checing (bad eyesight).
Obama and I Agree: Congress Must Lieve With Its Own Fraud (The "Automatic Cuts")
And they (you know who you are!!!) said that this blog had no influence!!!! Look at the earlier blog article this Monday, where I told you (in the P.S.) that Congress MUST be held to the "atutomatic cuts' in the "debt ceiling deal", or else we are endorsing the idea that Congress will NEVEER be hled to its promisses. Every member of Congress who wants to simply "undo" the "automatic cuts"---or any part of them--shoiuld simply be VOTED OUT OF OFFICE (if he or she does not resign: John McCain, this means YOU, in terms of a person who shold resign).
President Obama obviously agrees with me, because it was a major portion of his 5 minute speech on the failure of teh "supercommittee". In fact, it was the only part of teh speech taht made sense. Obama obviusly reads this bog (or has his speeches written by someone who does), as Obama has never made this kind of snense before. .It is, indeed, unconscionable to allow Congress to take an "off ramp" to get off of the highway that Congress itself set up (with grgreat fanfare from Congress AND Obama, and the great, accurate criticism from this blog).
The rest of President Obama's speech--the part which was not lifted right out of this blog--was the lusal class warfarem oartusab stuff from our Liar-in-Chief. Of course, you did have lthe hilarious COMIC RELIEF, as Obama ended with his usual statement that the American people expect the Federal Government to live within its means, just like they have to. President Obama has NEVER made ANY propsoal which would resutl in the Federal Goverfnment "living within its means", and has no intention of ever doing so (except as a LIE from our Liear-in-Chief), .
Then there is taht "tax the walthy" LIE. The present Obama/leftist Democrat talking point is taht this is all about the "99%" (of which I am a part) against the "1%" (our Liar-in-Cheif asserting that this is not "class warfare", as he refers to "fair share", meaningless as that phrase is, as he makes a prphet of Ayn Rand). Obama a, leftist Democrats and establishment GOP people seem to be headig right down teh road outlined some 60 years ago by Ayn Rand, trying to make 1% of the populiation SLAVES to support the remaining 99%. It is absurd.
How absurd is it? Look at the Obama "jobs bill" (which will not pass, althouygh the GOP may BETRAY every principle they purport to embrace and pass the DEFICT ADDING , fraudulent "payroll tax cut" and the DEFICIT ADDING unemployment benefit extension. That bill will ADD some 450 BILLINO dollars to THIS YEAR'S DEFICIT. If we raise taxes on the top 1%, we will--even if they PAY the taxes, and don't avoid them or suffer a loss of taxable revenue because of this policy--raise LESS than the amount Obama is increasing the deficit (literally, if Obama was not LYING about the 1%,as Obama is planning on incrreasing taxes on considerably more than that percentage, or considering the time value of money if you look at the $700 billion dollars that allegedly can be "raised" by eliminating the "Bush tax cuts" for people earning more than $200,000). But it is worse lthatn that. Obama is talking aoubt INCREASING teh deficit, with his jobs bill, over ONE YEAR. He is talking abut INCREASING TAXES over TEN YEARS. That means that people earining over $200,000 will be paying extra taxes OVER 7 YEARS just to finance ONE YEAR of Obama's "jobs bill" (including GIMMICKS like taht "payroll tax cut' WELFARE PAYMENT). Ayn Rand was right. That is SLAVERY, and the top 1% will not stand for it. One way or another they will not pay it. But it is still worse thatn that, as I have indicated. 450 BILLION DOLLARS in ONE YEAR has a much LARGER cost over ten years. Depending on you assumed inteerest rate (discount rate), that $450 BILLION dollars that Obama wants to add to the defict is worth AT LEAST that $700 billion he wants to "raise" from the wealthy over ten years. In other words, Obama really wants to USE the ENTIRE amount he says we should ADD to the taxes of teh "rich" to "pay for" jsut the Obama "jobs bill", WIHHOUT MAKING A DENT IN OUR CONTINUING DEFICT PROBLEM.
Do you need any further defiinition of "tax and spend". For Obama, and leftist Democrats, addtioinal taxes are to be SPENT on ADDITONAL DEFIICTS, without ever even attempting to "solve' our present debt/defict problem. That is what I mean by "absurd". Note that it si even worse with those fictional "spending cuts" over ten years. $450 BILLION dollars added to our DEBT now adds up to much more lthan that over ten years (since Obama has no intention of paying off the debt we NOW owe, meaning that the $450 billion dollars will added to the debt will STAY THERE the whole ten years, and more), But "spending cuts' in in thefuture can NEVER offsent SPENDING now. Again, we are dealing with the "time value" of money. You have to DISCOUNT a "spending cut" ten years from now to estimate how mcuh PREWESENT SPENDING it really "offsets". But, of course, it is really much worse than that. You also have to figure that the "future" "spending cut" MAY NEVER HAPPEN (what is it about this "move" to cancel the "automatic cuts" that you don't understand?). Thius, it is absurd, and a Democrat/GOP LIE to say that you can "pay for" PRESENT SPENDING with the same amount of "cuts" in the future. Even if you "discount" the amont of future "savings" to take care of the "time value of money" (which can only be an estimate), you still have the problem that the "cuts' MAY NEVER HAPPEN. It is all absurd. Spending, and deficit additons, NOW need to be offset with "cuts" (and/or revnue increases, except those would DESTROY the econmy) NOW--not ten years from now.
Those "atuomatic cuts"? Every time the media references them (at least almost every time), they LIE. Taht is because those "atutomatic cuts' are NOT NOW. They do not even START until 2013, and then they take place gradually over ten years. That $600 billin in "defense cuts". That is only 60 billion in 2013. That 600 billion in domestic spending cuts? That is only 60 billin in 2013. The whole 1.2 trillin in sPENDING CUTS that the "supercommittee" could not find (without large tax increases)? That involved LESS than 3% of TOTAL PROJECXTED SPENDING over the next ten years. What Obama and the Democrats are saying is that they could not cut 3% out of PROJECTED Federal Government spending over 10 years without undermining the proper role of the Federal Government in this country. That is absurd. Taht is unconscionalbe. That shows you exactly where Obama and the Democrats intend to take this country.
We NEED to cut $500 BILLIN from Federal Government spending THIS YEAR. The GOP has not even "cut" ONE DOLLAR from this year, and will not. In fact, the GOP will APPROVE spending that INCREASES from last year. But even the GOP nominal "cuts' (based on a reduction in the projected INCREASE in spending) of some 24 billino will be VASTLY EXCEEDED by the amonts that the GOP is likely to ADD to the deficit at the end (IF they even get the 24 billion in nominal "cuts", which is unlikely). The "payroll tax cut' fraud alone will ADD 100 BILLION to the deficit, which is more than the GOP has even said they are "cutting'. As stated, the entire Obama "jobs bill" amounts to 450 BILLION, , and it is absurd to suggest that ANY of that will be "apid for" (when we need ever dollar of "savings" AND extra revenue to "pay for" the government we now have, since we are NOWW borrowing 41 cents out of every dollar, meaning that we are already NOT PAYING FOR more than 40 percent of the Federal Goverment). Liar-in-Chief Obama says this is "living within our means'. I till you: the man is a comic genius.
President Obama obviously agrees with me, because it was a major portion of his 5 minute speech on the failure of teh "supercommittee". In fact, it was the only part of teh speech taht made sense. Obama obviusly reads this bog (or has his speeches written by someone who does), as Obama has never made this kind of snense before. .It is, indeed, unconscionable to allow Congress to take an "off ramp" to get off of the highway that Congress itself set up (with grgreat fanfare from Congress AND Obama, and the great, accurate criticism from this blog).
The rest of President Obama's speech--the part which was not lifted right out of this blog--was the lusal class warfarem oartusab stuff from our Liar-in-Chief. Of course, you did have lthe hilarious COMIC RELIEF, as Obama ended with his usual statement that the American people expect the Federal Government to live within its means, just like they have to. President Obama has NEVER made ANY propsoal which would resutl in the Federal Goverfnment "living within its means", and has no intention of ever doing so (except as a LIE from our Liear-in-Chief), .
Then there is taht "tax the walthy" LIE. The present Obama/leftist Democrat talking point is taht this is all about the "99%" (of which I am a part) against the "1%" (our Liar-in-Cheif asserting that this is not "class warfare", as he refers to "fair share", meaningless as that phrase is, as he makes a prphet of Ayn Rand). Obama a, leftist Democrats and establishment GOP people seem to be headig right down teh road outlined some 60 years ago by Ayn Rand, trying to make 1% of the populiation SLAVES to support the remaining 99%. It is absurd.
How absurd is it? Look at the Obama "jobs bill" (which will not pass, althouygh the GOP may BETRAY every principle they purport to embrace and pass the DEFICT ADDING , fraudulent "payroll tax cut" and the DEFICIT ADDING unemployment benefit extension. That bill will ADD some 450 BILLINO dollars to THIS YEAR'S DEFICIT. If we raise taxes on the top 1%, we will--even if they PAY the taxes, and don't avoid them or suffer a loss of taxable revenue because of this policy--raise LESS than the amount Obama is increasing the deficit (literally, if Obama was not LYING about the 1%,as Obama is planning on incrreasing taxes on considerably more than that percentage, or considering the time value of money if you look at the $700 billion dollars that allegedly can be "raised" by eliminating the "Bush tax cuts" for people earning more than $200,000). But it is worse lthatn that. Obama is talking aoubt INCREASING teh deficit, with his jobs bill, over ONE YEAR. He is talking abut INCREASING TAXES over TEN YEARS. That means that people earining over $200,000 will be paying extra taxes OVER 7 YEARS just to finance ONE YEAR of Obama's "jobs bill" (including GIMMICKS like taht "payroll tax cut' WELFARE PAYMENT). Ayn Rand was right. That is SLAVERY, and the top 1% will not stand for it. One way or another they will not pay it. But it is still worse thatn that, as I have indicated. 450 BILLION DOLLARS in ONE YEAR has a much LARGER cost over ten years. Depending on you assumed inteerest rate (discount rate), that $450 BILLION dollars that Obama wants to add to the defict is worth AT LEAST that $700 billion he wants to "raise" from the wealthy over ten years. In other words, Obama really wants to USE the ENTIRE amount he says we should ADD to the taxes of teh "rich" to "pay for" jsut the Obama "jobs bill", WIHHOUT MAKING A DENT IN OUR CONTINUING DEFICT PROBLEM.
Do you need any further defiinition of "tax and spend". For Obama, and leftist Democrats, addtioinal taxes are to be SPENT on ADDITONAL DEFIICTS, without ever even attempting to "solve' our present debt/defict problem. That is what I mean by "absurd". Note that it si even worse with those fictional "spending cuts" over ten years. $450 BILLION dollars added to our DEBT now adds up to much more lthan that over ten years (since Obama has no intention of paying off the debt we NOW owe, meaning that the $450 billion dollars will added to the debt will STAY THERE the whole ten years, and more), But "spending cuts' in in thefuture can NEVER offsent SPENDING now. Again, we are dealing with the "time value" of money. You have to DISCOUNT a "spending cut" ten years from now to estimate how mcuh PREWESENT SPENDING it really "offsets". But, of course, it is really much worse than that. You also have to figure that the "future" "spending cut" MAY NEVER HAPPEN (what is it about this "move" to cancel the "automatic cuts" that you don't understand?). Thius, it is absurd, and a Democrat/GOP LIE to say that you can "pay for" PRESENT SPENDING with the same amount of "cuts" in the future. Even if you "discount" the amont of future "savings" to take care of the "time value of money" (which can only be an estimate), you still have the problem that the "cuts' MAY NEVER HAPPEN. It is all absurd. Spending, and deficit additons, NOW need to be offset with "cuts" (and/or revnue increases, except those would DESTROY the econmy) NOW--not ten years from now.
Those "atuomatic cuts"? Every time the media references them (at least almost every time), they LIE. Taht is because those "atutomatic cuts' are NOT NOW. They do not even START until 2013, and then they take place gradually over ten years. That $600 billin in "defense cuts". That is only 60 billion in 2013. That 600 billion in domestic spending cuts? That is only 60 billin in 2013. The whole 1.2 trillin in sPENDING CUTS that the "supercommittee" could not find (without large tax increases)? That involved LESS than 3% of TOTAL PROJECXTED SPENDING over the next ten years. What Obama and the Democrats are saying is that they could not cut 3% out of PROJECTED Federal Government spending over 10 years without undermining the proper role of the Federal Government in this country. That is absurd. Taht is unconscionalbe. That shows you exactly where Obama and the Democrats intend to take this country.
We NEED to cut $500 BILLIN from Federal Government spending THIS YEAR. The GOP has not even "cut" ONE DOLLAR from this year, and will not. In fact, the GOP will APPROVE spending that INCREASES from last year. But even the GOP nominal "cuts' (based on a reduction in the projected INCREASE in spending) of some 24 billino will be VASTLY EXCEEDED by the amonts that the GOP is likely to ADD to the deficit at the end (IF they even get the 24 billion in nominal "cuts", which is unlikely). The "payroll tax cut' fraud alone will ADD 100 BILLION to the deficit, which is more than the GOP has even said they are "cutting'. As stated, the entire Obama "jobs bill" amounts to 450 BILLION, , and it is absurd to suggest that ANY of that will be "apid for" (when we need ever dollar of "savings" AND extra revenue to "pay for" the government we now have, since we are NOWW borrowing 41 cents out of every dollar, meaning that we are already NOT PAYING FOR more than 40 percent of the Federal Goverment). Liar-in-Chief Obama says this is "living within our means'. I till you: the man is a comic genius.
Congress: Defeat Them ALL (GOP Included)
Nope. You may be hearing from the mainstream media, the unfair and unbalanced network, and others that Congrss has "fialed" becaue the "supercommittee" did not come up with a "deal"--aNY deail (that is how stupid these people are) .
Taht is tnot the problem. It is certaainly not my problem. My problem is that theese people are COWARDS 9especailly the GOP) Democrats at least KNOW waht theey want: to run against the WEALTHY, and to etablish the principle taht we should look to "the rich" to support us all. The Democrats have a sonsistent, if disatrous, MESSAGE: All class warfare, all of the time.
What is the gOP message? Cut spending? Don't make me laugh. We want to get relected, and are COWRDS? Now that one I can belive.
What prompted this article? If you listen to eany of teh "news', yo know. The present "news' (coming from the "radio minute", presented by the unfiar and unablanced network", as I was tuning in the Rush Limbaugh program) is that the GOP (naturally, cowards that they are) is makng a "last ditch" effort to "salvage" teh "supercommittee", as GOP cowars Joh Kyle and Rob Portman go to John Kerry's office to BEG (okay, I addded that last word as an editorial comment, but the rest is factually what was reported).
Yep. Jon Kyle, I jsut called you a COWRSD. Waht do you want to do about ti? I will not eidt ANY response you, or any supporter of ours, want to make. Rob portman, I just called you a COWRD. Same thing applies.
I just can't stand it. The kindest thing you can suspect (I don't) about this is taht the GOP is jsut tryigng to make DEMOCRATS "look bad",as teh GOP goes through the motions of looking like they are the ones wanting a "deal". I don't give them even that much "credt". Besides, if that is the "tactic", it is going to FAIL miserably . All the GOP is doing is make themselves look like weak beggars who really don't have the "principles" they profess to have. Their SUPPORTERS may have those principles, but that ony means that these COWARDS have to look for a FRAUDULENT way to dECEIVE their own supporters.
The stock marrket is ging down today (as I told you the BLCKMAILERS and economic fascists n Wall Street would react, as part of the eXTROTION), but it is absurd to suggest that this has much to do with the lack of a "deal' (again, any deal, whether it hurts the country or not). Sure, there would have been a short-lived "bounce" in stocks if a "deal" had been reached (not matter whether the "deal" would destroy the economy of this coutnry, since HYPE is all the economic fascists on Wall Street care about) . But the REAL "cause" of what is going on in the stock market is EUROPE, and COMPUTER TRADEING (as the stock market had reached the TOP of its recent computer trading range---really a "bubble", since there was no reason for such a rise in terms of the real economy--and the computers were set for it to go back down. But the MEDIA is pushing the idea--as I warned you would happen--that this is the end of civilizatin as we knowit, UNLESS theGOP caves. Oh, and Obamais back from bein AWOL oveseas to "save the day (lol). And, as usual, the COWRDS of teh GOP are buckling under the pressure.
I beg you. DEFAT JON KYLE. DEFEAT ROB PORTMAN. Defeat them ALL (all of Congress), excepting only those GOP members who SLAM their "leadership", and disassociate themselves from these FRAUDS.
I jsut can't stand it. And I KNEW it was ogong to happen. I just about predicted it in my other artilles over the past two days, but this is a case wheerre I jsut could not bear to tell you what I knew to be the turuth: The GOP is just unwiling to FIGHT for Tea Party principles, or any others. They are COWARDS. I might as well have gotten the steirle satisfactin of a correct prediction, obvious as it was, as there was never any hope that the GOP would GRACEFULLY take up the battle gauntlet thrown by teh Democrats.
The supercommittee NEEDED TO FAIL, because any "result" was gong to be a FRAUD and a SHAM. See my earlier article today . I guarantee yoou that a MAJOR thing bothering the GOP is taht they now are going to have to CONSIDER what tod do aobut things like that fradulent "payroll tax cut". That is one thing these COWARDS of the GOP just can't face: actually making "hard" decisoins on things like the "payroll tax cut" and "extending unemployment benefits". They desperately wanted the "supercommittee" to handle those things for them. They still want that--even at the end, when they have lost ALL credibility with absolutely everyone.
Thre is not even any questin. The GOP is made up of COWRDS. Unless a GOP member of Congrss can convince you he or she is not one of those cowads (really, a heavy burden NOT met by merely voting for a ficitonal "balanced budget amendment"), then you need to THOW YOUR CONGRSSMAN and your SENATORS out. That means ALL of them, Democrats and members of teh Grand Outdated Party.
I tell you. I jsut can't stand it. And what bothers me most is the FRAUD of why MOST pople (if you listent to the unreliable media) evidently can't stand it. The proaganda is that most people can't stand that Congrss cannot "make a deaL". What I can't stand is the SHAM deals, and the constant EXTORTION and DECEIT of this entire "deal making" process.
You can see that a "last ditch" deal is just going to make me think worse of the GOP. It will be another SHAM and FRAUD, becuase the Democrts have already announced that is the only "deal" tehy will make. Now the GOP may rightly consider that they have already LOST ME. And that is true. But threre are many other people out there (my borthers, for example), who have not yet beocme TOTALLLY disgusted with the GOP--enough to not care if leftist Democrats win victories. The clueless GOP is in the proccess of alienating absolutely EVERYONE, and not just people like me (ahed of the curve, as usual).
P.S, No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Taht is tnot the problem. It is certaainly not my problem. My problem is that theese people are COWARDS 9especailly the GOP) Democrats at least KNOW waht theey want: to run against the WEALTHY, and to etablish the principle taht we should look to "the rich" to support us all. The Democrats have a sonsistent, if disatrous, MESSAGE: All class warfare, all of the time.
What is the gOP message? Cut spending? Don't make me laugh. We want to get relected, and are COWRDS? Now that one I can belive.
What prompted this article? If you listen to eany of teh "news', yo know. The present "news' (coming from the "radio minute", presented by the unfiar and unablanced network", as I was tuning in the Rush Limbaugh program) is that the GOP (naturally, cowards that they are) is makng a "last ditch" effort to "salvage" teh "supercommittee", as GOP cowars Joh Kyle and Rob Portman go to John Kerry's office to BEG (okay, I addded that last word as an editorial comment, but the rest is factually what was reported).
Yep. Jon Kyle, I jsut called you a COWRSD. Waht do you want to do about ti? I will not eidt ANY response you, or any supporter of ours, want to make. Rob portman, I just called you a COWRD. Same thing applies.
I just can't stand it. The kindest thing you can suspect (I don't) about this is taht the GOP is jsut tryigng to make DEMOCRATS "look bad",as teh GOP goes through the motions of looking like they are the ones wanting a "deal". I don't give them even that much "credt". Besides, if that is the "tactic", it is going to FAIL miserably . All the GOP is doing is make themselves look like weak beggars who really don't have the "principles" they profess to have. Their SUPPORTERS may have those principles, but that ony means that these COWARDS have to look for a FRAUDULENT way to dECEIVE their own supporters.
The stock marrket is ging down today (as I told you the BLCKMAILERS and economic fascists n Wall Street would react, as part of the eXTROTION), but it is absurd to suggest that this has much to do with the lack of a "deal' (again, any deal, whether it hurts the country or not). Sure, there would have been a short-lived "bounce" in stocks if a "deal" had been reached (not matter whether the "deal" would destroy the economy of this coutnry, since HYPE is all the economic fascists on Wall Street care about) . But the REAL "cause" of what is going on in the stock market is EUROPE, and COMPUTER TRADEING (as the stock market had reached the TOP of its recent computer trading range---really a "bubble", since there was no reason for such a rise in terms of the real economy--and the computers were set for it to go back down. But the MEDIA is pushing the idea--as I warned you would happen--that this is the end of civilizatin as we knowit, UNLESS theGOP caves. Oh, and Obamais back from bein AWOL oveseas to "save the day (lol). And, as usual, the COWRDS of teh GOP are buckling under the pressure.
I beg you. DEFAT JON KYLE. DEFEAT ROB PORTMAN. Defeat them ALL (all of Congress), excepting only those GOP members who SLAM their "leadership", and disassociate themselves from these FRAUDS.
I jsut can't stand it. And I KNEW it was ogong to happen. I just about predicted it in my other artilles over the past two days, but this is a case wheerre I jsut could not bear to tell you what I knew to be the turuth: The GOP is just unwiling to FIGHT for Tea Party principles, or any others. They are COWARDS. I might as well have gotten the steirle satisfactin of a correct prediction, obvious as it was, as there was never any hope that the GOP would GRACEFULLY take up the battle gauntlet thrown by teh Democrats.
The supercommittee NEEDED TO FAIL, because any "result" was gong to be a FRAUD and a SHAM. See my earlier article today . I guarantee yoou that a MAJOR thing bothering the GOP is taht they now are going to have to CONSIDER what tod do aobut things like that fradulent "payroll tax cut". That is one thing these COWARDS of the GOP just can't face: actually making "hard" decisoins on things like the "payroll tax cut" and "extending unemployment benefits". They desperately wanted the "supercommittee" to handle those things for them. They still want that--even at the end, when they have lost ALL credibility with absolutely everyone.
Thre is not even any questin. The GOP is made up of COWRDS. Unless a GOP member of Congrss can convince you he or she is not one of those cowads (really, a heavy burden NOT met by merely voting for a ficitonal "balanced budget amendment"), then you need to THOW YOUR CONGRSSMAN and your SENATORS out. That means ALL of them, Democrats and members of teh Grand Outdated Party.
I tell you. I jsut can't stand it. And what bothers me most is the FRAUD of why MOST pople (if you listent to the unreliable media) evidently can't stand it. The proaganda is that most people can't stand that Congrss cannot "make a deaL". What I can't stand is the SHAM deals, and the constant EXTORTION and DECEIT of this entire "deal making" process.
You can see that a "last ditch" deal is just going to make me think worse of the GOP. It will be another SHAM and FRAUD, becuase the Democrts have already announced that is the only "deal" tehy will make. Now the GOP may rightly consider that they have already LOST ME. And that is true. But threre are many other people out there (my borthers, for example), who have not yet beocme TOTALLLY disgusted with the GOP--enough to not care if leftist Democrats win victories. The clueless GOP is in the proccess of alienating absolutely EVERYONE, and not just people like me (ahed of the curve, as usual).
P.S, No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
GOP Liars and Hypocrites
I saw a GOP politician (House member, I believe) on MSNBC this morning. All you have to do is SURF any of these networks, inccluding the unfair and unbalanced network, to get IMMEDIATE matrial for tthis blog. Some of yo umay get the idea that I watch HOURS of "news' every day. Not tre. I merely surf MINUTES each day. That is just how BAD these people really are., and the politicians they "interview". You may have noticed I seemto be surfing CNN more these days than the unfair and unbalanced network. I assure yoyu it is merely a few minutes a day, but taht is pretty much true. Why? Welll, ssee my weekend article. Why should I watch CNN Light (the unfaira and unbalanced network), when I can watch the real hard core stuff (while getting my conservative "news" from Rush Limbaugh and a variety of sources)? It merely makes me sad and depressed to watch the unfiar and unbalanced network, when I would much ratherbe ANGRY (adrenalin, you know) at the evil, dishonest, partisan bigots of CNN. I digress (sort of), although the above explains why I was actually SURING MSNBC to see reactino to the apparent FAILURE 9f the famous supercommittee.
What did the GOP (Grand Outdated Party) politician do to raise my ire? Well, he was adked what the GOP would now do, without the "supercommittee" to provide COVER, about all of teh deficit/spending issues that must be addressed by the end of this year. Tahat, o fourse, made me ANGRY all over again at the dishonest FRAUDS of the GOP: talking deficit reduction while they really always intended to ADD to the current deficit. This mere question confirmed to me again what I have always known: That the GOP "debt ceiling deal" was designed to allow the GOP to BETRAY us on deficits, while still talking like they were seriious about "fighting" them. Every time I even think abut it, my blood boils. These people--GOP politicians---are DISHONEST to the core (most of them). Now Democrats LIE--especailly leftist ones. But there is a way in which they are fundamentally honest, evenif they sometimes liea about it if they think it is conventinet (as Obama does all of the time). Democrats really do belive in Big Goverrnment. However, I don't think it is true that GOP poiticians, in the main, really belive in SMALL GOVERNMENT. They jsut pretend, while pandering and bribing just like the Democrats. Doubt me? Never do that. I still have not gotten to the LIE the GOP politician told CNN.
The specific question was about the "payroll tax cut" (Social Seucrity tax gimickand BRIBE which was part of the FRAUDULENT GOP/Obama "deal" at the end of 2010, adding more than 100 billin dollars to the deficit "in exchange" for a temporary extension of teh "Bush tax cuts"). The GOP had HOPED to CONCEAL the fact that they have not only failed to "cut" the deifict for the previous and current fiscal lyear, despite promises, but want to ADD to it. Yep. The other part of the quesiton was about extending the extended unemployment benefits--meaning that people are paid ofor 99 weeks to stay out of work. Again, this "extension" alone would ADD more lto the deficit than the GOP has "cut" from the CURRENT spending (including the fiscal year just ennded). The GOP politicina's response was the OBAMA respnse. I can't make this up.
What the GOP politican said was that the GOP House would come up with alll kinds of ideas to "add jobs", but that he was not sure what the bad boys in the Senate would do. But here is the kicker. He did NOT try to say that the GOP would not ADD to the current deficit. He said exactly the opoposite (theObama lie that this blog has debunked time and time again). What this GOP politician said was that maybe the GOP would extend that Social Security tax cut BRIBE (which did NOT add jobs for this current year, but added more than 100 billin dollars to the deficit, AND undercut the whole concept of Social Security "paying for itself"), but that the GOP House would "pay for" any such propsal so that it does not add to the deficit. That, of course, was the same response to the unemployment benefit extensin, and the GOP politican even said that the GOP would have other "ideas", but would always make sure (if you listen hard, you can hear OBAMA saying these words) that any such "ideas" are "apid for".
There is no way to sugar coat this: This is a LIE. It was a LIE when Obama said it, and when ihe says it now. It is a LIE when a GOP politician says it. It has ALWAYS been a LIE, and it will always be a lie. It is one of the main reasons--acceptance of this LIE--that I have WALKED AWAY from the Grand Outdated Party, wihout ever lookng back, and wihout even a twinge off regret. Remember Herman Cain's "apples and oranges"? That is only part of the LIE here. What the GOP politician was talking aobut was pretending to "apy for" CURRENT ADDITINS TO THE DEBT AND DEFICITS with FUTURE "CUTS" (usually far fuutre). You just can't get any more dishonest than that, since the future cuts willprobably never take place. If this were ont a LIE for even more fundamental reasons-that is, if we presently had a balanced budget--it is abusrd to suggest that you can compare adding to the defict NOW with PROMISES to "cut" in the FUTURE. Taht was the FRAUD that the GOP expected the "sueprcommittee" to CONCEAL for them, As I said, you do not get any more DISHONEST than these GOP politicans. Sure, Obama is DISHONEST when he says his "jobs bill" is "fuly paid for", but we KNOW whre Obama is coming from He WANTS Big Government. What excuse does the GOP hav for adopting this LIE? None.
What is the fundamental LIE here? Come on. You know this one. We are presently borrowing more than 40 cents out of every dollar tlhe Federal Government spends. In other words, we are not paying for what we have NOW. We have an approximately 1.5 TRILLOIN dollar deficit EVERY YEAR.--projected to be above 1 TRILLIN dollars as far as the eye can see. Yet, the GOP and Obama are talking about temporary GIMMICKS (the suposed "payroll tax cut" being merely a welfare payment that undermines funding for Social Security, rather than a real "tax cut") to BRIBE people, adding hundreds of billions to the deficit. And then the politicians compound the DECEIT by talking aoubt "apying for" these gimmicks with FUTURE PROMISES, while we continue to borrow more than 40 cents out of every dollar we spend (even without the fimmicks). What can yo usay about that kind of insanity? Say that the GOP can come up with 100 billion dollars in spendin gcuts "THIS YEAR (rather than the FRAUD of illusory "cuts" in far future years)? We NEED that money to reduce the PRESENT DEFICIT. It is beyond stupid to say that such 100 billion dollars in "cuts' should be used to pay for ANOTHER GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. If we use every dollar we can beg, borrow, or steal to to "fund' additonal deficit spending, how do we eVER lower the deficit? Answer: we don't, and the GOP has no intention (if yu are not Ron Paul or Michele Bachmann) of doing so Taht is twhat this GOP politician made clear to MSNBC, as he LIED the same way Obama and leftist Democrats lie.
Let me do a thought experiment for you, to illustrate what I am talking about. Assume, taxing as it may be on your imagination, that we now had a BALANCED BUDGET (spending exactly the amount of our revenue). All right. Say that we then added a 100 billion dollar "payrolll tax cut" (BRIBE). That would mean we would no longer have a balanced budget. We would have a 100 billin dollar defict. Remember, in the actual oworld, we already have about a 1.5 TRILLION dollar shortfall between our spending and what we take in. But, in our hypothetical thought experiment, ew are assuing that we have a balanced budget amendment in place, and actually have a balanced budget. Therefore, we do not have to worry about teh falsehood of saying that we are gong to "pay for" a NEW program, wihout paying for the old progarams. Okay. We are now facing a 1000 billin dollar deficit, in our thought experiment, because we want to do this "apyroll tax cut" gimmick (plus maybe even more billoions for extending unemplyment bekynd the transition peeriod taht has been thought to be appropriate in the past--being 6 months). All we have to do is "pay for it", right? Okay, so we "cut' 100 billion dollars from the 2020 spending....................................................................................Have you stooped laughing yet? Yet that is exactly what the way both Obama/leftist Democrats and the GOP says we should look at this. Obivously, it would VIOLATE a "balanced budget amendment" to create a 100 billin dollar deficit for THIS YER, and say it is "apid for" by a "cut" in 2020. Isn't it obvius that all yo would be dong it creating a DEFICIT for the current year? Of course it is obvious, but that FRAAUD is what our politicians want us to accpet. And it is a FRAUD to say that you are "pyaig for" a current addition to the deficit with a FUTURE "cut". And that is on top of the FRAUD of saying that yo are "paying for" ANY "new" program, when you need to find about 1.5 trillion dollars to just 'pay for" what we now have.
I can't tell ou how angry I get every time I even think abut this FRAUD, which is ACCEPTED by teh media, leftist Democrats (of course), AND the GOP. It is absurd. It is insane. You should be abel to see why I just can't stand "politics as usual" any more, and would rather see Barakc Obama Preisdent aagin than see a "poitics as usual" GOP DESTROY this country (jsut like Obama, although maybe SLOWR). TheGOP even uses the same LANGUAGE as Obama, and then they expect to reach peole .GAG.
P.S. No proofreading or spell chedkng (bad eyesight). Oh, by the way, I truly WANT these "automatic cuts" that are supposedly "triggered" by the failure of the defict "supercommittee" to go into effect. Is that because I favor the "cuts' in defnse spending, and the possible gutting of our national defense? Of course not. But look at the FRAUD here. We, teh public, are constantly being EXTTORTED with THREATS. TheDemocrats and GOP set up this joke of a supercommittee as a FRAUD, and they CREATED this false "crisis", with the specific intent of EXTORTING both the public and any principled politicinas to go along with a SHAM "deal" taht the supercommittee was supposed to come up with Further, they deliberately postponed the "day of reckoning" to 2013--not only after the electin but so they woul dhave time to say: "we were just kidding aoubt our THREATS", and get out of the mess they created for themselves. Well I am tired of it. We are constantly threated as to why we can't do anything abuot the deficit. "Shut the government down?" That is the cry every time the HOuse tries to do what it is CONSTITUTIOINALLY supposed to do: vote ONLY for spending that is agreed upn by amajority of the House. "If we don't raise the debt ceiling, then it is Armageddon--the end of civilizaiton as we know it." Now we are going to be told, AFTER we were told that we needed to FORCE the supercommittee to do a deal to "save us", that we "have" to "do something" abut these "automatic cuts', or face the end of civilization as we know it. Nope. I am tired of it. Congress should HAVEE to LIVE with what they said they were dong, rather than have us APPROVE of being DEFRAUDED (as Congress admits they were kidding). No. I say: DEFEAT every single member of Congress who proposes "rescinindg" any part of these "automatic cuts", especially if that member voted for the "debt ceiling deal' setting up this fruad. Should you believe AnYTING either Congress or the media tells you abut "deadlines", and the "end of civilization as we know it"? Of ocurse nt. I now wnat to CALL THEIR BLUFF, and make them live with what they have done (at least until we kick ALL of this bunch out).
What did the GOP (Grand Outdated Party) politician do to raise my ire? Well, he was adked what the GOP would now do, without the "supercommittee" to provide COVER, about all of teh deficit/spending issues that must be addressed by the end of this year. Tahat, o fourse, made me ANGRY all over again at the dishonest FRAUDS of the GOP: talking deficit reduction while they really always intended to ADD to the current deficit. This mere question confirmed to me again what I have always known: That the GOP "debt ceiling deal" was designed to allow the GOP to BETRAY us on deficits, while still talking like they were seriious about "fighting" them. Every time I even think abut it, my blood boils. These people--GOP politicians---are DISHONEST to the core (most of them). Now Democrats LIE--especailly leftist ones. But there is a way in which they are fundamentally honest, evenif they sometimes liea about it if they think it is conventinet (as Obama does all of the time). Democrats really do belive in Big Goverrnment. However, I don't think it is true that GOP poiticians, in the main, really belive in SMALL GOVERNMENT. They jsut pretend, while pandering and bribing just like the Democrats. Doubt me? Never do that. I still have not gotten to the LIE the GOP politician told CNN.
The specific question was about the "payroll tax cut" (Social Seucrity tax gimickand BRIBE which was part of the FRAUDULENT GOP/Obama "deal" at the end of 2010, adding more than 100 billin dollars to the deficit "in exchange" for a temporary extension of teh "Bush tax cuts"). The GOP had HOPED to CONCEAL the fact that they have not only failed to "cut" the deifict for the previous and current fiscal lyear, despite promises, but want to ADD to it. Yep. The other part of the quesiton was about extending the extended unemployment benefits--meaning that people are paid ofor 99 weeks to stay out of work. Again, this "extension" alone would ADD more lto the deficit than the GOP has "cut" from the CURRENT spending (including the fiscal year just ennded). The GOP politicina's response was the OBAMA respnse. I can't make this up.
What the GOP politican said was that the GOP House would come up with alll kinds of ideas to "add jobs", but that he was not sure what the bad boys in the Senate would do. But here is the kicker. He did NOT try to say that the GOP would not ADD to the current deficit. He said exactly the opoposite (theObama lie that this blog has debunked time and time again). What this GOP politician said was that maybe the GOP would extend that Social Security tax cut BRIBE (which did NOT add jobs for this current year, but added more than 100 billin dollars to the deficit, AND undercut the whole concept of Social Security "paying for itself"), but that the GOP House would "pay for" any such propsal so that it does not add to the deficit. That, of course, was the same response to the unemployment benefit extensin, and the GOP politican even said that the GOP would have other "ideas", but would always make sure (if you listen hard, you can hear OBAMA saying these words) that any such "ideas" are "apid for".
There is no way to sugar coat this: This is a LIE. It was a LIE when Obama said it, and when ihe says it now. It is a LIE when a GOP politician says it. It has ALWAYS been a LIE, and it will always be a lie. It is one of the main reasons--acceptance of this LIE--that I have WALKED AWAY from the Grand Outdated Party, wihout ever lookng back, and wihout even a twinge off regret. Remember Herman Cain's "apples and oranges"? That is only part of the LIE here. What the GOP politician was talking aobut was pretending to "apy for" CURRENT ADDITINS TO THE DEBT AND DEFICITS with FUTURE "CUTS" (usually far fuutre). You just can't get any more dishonest than that, since the future cuts willprobably never take place. If this were ont a LIE for even more fundamental reasons-that is, if we presently had a balanced budget--it is abusrd to suggest that you can compare adding to the defict NOW with PROMISES to "cut" in the FUTURE. Taht was the FRAUD that the GOP expected the "sueprcommittee" to CONCEAL for them, As I said, you do not get any more DISHONEST than these GOP politicans. Sure, Obama is DISHONEST when he says his "jobs bill" is "fuly paid for", but we KNOW whre Obama is coming from He WANTS Big Government. What excuse does the GOP hav for adopting this LIE? None.
What is the fundamental LIE here? Come on. You know this one. We are presently borrowing more than 40 cents out of every dollar tlhe Federal Government spends. In other words, we are not paying for what we have NOW. We have an approximately 1.5 TRILLOIN dollar deficit EVERY YEAR.--projected to be above 1 TRILLIN dollars as far as the eye can see. Yet, the GOP and Obama are talking about temporary GIMMICKS (the suposed "payroll tax cut" being merely a welfare payment that undermines funding for Social Security, rather than a real "tax cut") to BRIBE people, adding hundreds of billions to the deficit. And then the politicians compound the DECEIT by talking aoubt "apying for" these gimmicks with FUTURE PROMISES, while we continue to borrow more than 40 cents out of every dollar we spend (even without the fimmicks). What can yo usay about that kind of insanity? Say that the GOP can come up with 100 billion dollars in spendin gcuts "THIS YEAR (rather than the FRAUD of illusory "cuts" in far future years)? We NEED that money to reduce the PRESENT DEFICIT. It is beyond stupid to say that such 100 billion dollars in "cuts' should be used to pay for ANOTHER GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. If we use every dollar we can beg, borrow, or steal to to "fund' additonal deficit spending, how do we eVER lower the deficit? Answer: we don't, and the GOP has no intention (if yu are not Ron Paul or Michele Bachmann) of doing so Taht is twhat this GOP politician made clear to MSNBC, as he LIED the same way Obama and leftist Democrats lie.
Let me do a thought experiment for you, to illustrate what I am talking about. Assume, taxing as it may be on your imagination, that we now had a BALANCED BUDGET (spending exactly the amount of our revenue). All right. Say that we then added a 100 billion dollar "payrolll tax cut" (BRIBE). That would mean we would no longer have a balanced budget. We would have a 100 billin dollar defict. Remember, in the actual oworld, we already have about a 1.5 TRILLION dollar shortfall between our spending and what we take in. But, in our hypothetical thought experiment, ew are assuing that we have a balanced budget amendment in place, and actually have a balanced budget. Therefore, we do not have to worry about teh falsehood of saying that we are gong to "pay for" a NEW program, wihout paying for the old progarams. Okay. We are now facing a 1000 billin dollar deficit, in our thought experiment, because we want to do this "apyroll tax cut" gimmick (plus maybe even more billoions for extending unemplyment bekynd the transition peeriod taht has been thought to be appropriate in the past--being 6 months). All we have to do is "pay for it", right? Okay, so we "cut' 100 billion dollars from the 2020 spending....................................................................................Have you stooped laughing yet? Yet that is exactly what the way both Obama/leftist Democrats and the GOP says we should look at this. Obivously, it would VIOLATE a "balanced budget amendment" to create a 100 billin dollar deficit for THIS YER, and say it is "apid for" by a "cut" in 2020. Isn't it obvius that all yo would be dong it creating a DEFICIT for the current year? Of course it is obvious, but that FRAAUD is what our politicians want us to accpet. And it is a FRAUD to say that you are "pyaig for" a current addition to the deficit with a FUTURE "cut". And that is on top of the FRAUD of saying that yo are "paying for" ANY "new" program, when you need to find about 1.5 trillion dollars to just 'pay for" what we now have.
I can't tell ou how angry I get every time I even think abut this FRAUD, which is ACCEPTED by teh media, leftist Democrats (of course), AND the GOP. It is absurd. It is insane. You should be abel to see why I just can't stand "politics as usual" any more, and would rather see Barakc Obama Preisdent aagin than see a "poitics as usual" GOP DESTROY this country (jsut like Obama, although maybe SLOWR). TheGOP even uses the same LANGUAGE as Obama, and then they expect to reach peole .GAG.
P.S. No proofreading or spell chedkng (bad eyesight). Oh, by the way, I truly WANT these "automatic cuts" that are supposedly "triggered" by the failure of the defict "supercommittee" to go into effect. Is that because I favor the "cuts' in defnse spending, and the possible gutting of our national defense? Of course not. But look at the FRAUD here. We, teh public, are constantly being EXTTORTED with THREATS. TheDemocrats and GOP set up this joke of a supercommittee as a FRAUD, and they CREATED this false "crisis", with the specific intent of EXTORTING both the public and any principled politicinas to go along with a SHAM "deal" taht the supercommittee was supposed to come up with Further, they deliberately postponed the "day of reckoning" to 2013--not only after the electin but so they woul dhave time to say: "we were just kidding aoubt our THREATS", and get out of the mess they created for themselves. Well I am tired of it. We are constantly threated as to why we can't do anything abuot the deficit. "Shut the government down?" That is the cry every time the HOuse tries to do what it is CONSTITUTIOINALLY supposed to do: vote ONLY for spending that is agreed upn by amajority of the House. "If we don't raise the debt ceiling, then it is Armageddon--the end of civilizaiton as we know it." Now we are going to be told, AFTER we were told that we needed to FORCE the supercommittee to do a deal to "save us", that we "have" to "do something" abut these "automatic cuts', or face the end of civilization as we know it. Nope. I am tired of it. Congress should HAVEE to LIVE with what they said they were dong, rather than have us APPROVE of being DEFRAUDED (as Congress admits they were kidding). No. I say: DEFEAT every single member of Congress who proposes "rescinindg" any part of these "automatic cuts", especially if that member voted for the "debt ceiling deal' setting up this fruad. Should you believe AnYTING either Congress or the media tells you abut "deadlines", and the "end of civilization as we know it"? Of ocurse nt. I now wnat to CALL THEIR BLUFF, and make them live with what they have done (at least until we kick ALL of this bunch out).
Religion and CNN (The Anti-Christian Network): Religioius Bigots and Hypocrites (The Gospel According to Barack Obama)
Remember my article (baout a week ago) abut CNN's John King: essentially calling him one of the worst hypocrites and liars in the history of tlelevision, on the most dishonest network in the hisotry of televions? Remember that what Jon King had done ws this RANT on how HORRIBLE (evil) it is to make "faith" an "issue" in this politicial campaign (at least if the "faith" is that of Brack Obama, non-Christian)--complete with clips of almost every time that Barack Obama has talked about his fairth and Jusus Christ? Yu may have thought I exaggerated. Think again. I UNDERSTATED just how hyupocritical CNN is. Doubt me? Never do thatt!!!
What was CNN talking about this morning? Right. The evil hypoocrites, as usual, were talking abut RELIGION: specificaly the religioin of GOP candidates, and the DETAILS of that religion (for all of the world like CNN,The Anti-Christian Network, believes tahtt eh RELITOIN of GOPcanddiates is a BIG "issue" in the caampaign). Have they told John King, historic liear and hypocrites? Well, they did not need to tell him. As a CNN hypocrite, he already knnew the CNN party line.
What triggered this particular CNN attack on the Christianity of CNN? I could never make this up, and this is why I say I have UNDERSTATED the anti-Christian hypocrisy of CNN. Look at the headline. Did you think that last parenthesis was merely Maverickk Conservative hyperbole Guess again. Oh, the headline LIES, but only for effect (withut fundamentally misrepresenting the evil of CNN). What CN featred this morning was a CNN reporter who wrote an "article' on CNN.com whith this title (really, I could not make this up): "The Gospel According to Herman Cain.." What would CNN/Joh Kng call a person on the unfair and unbalanced network had talked abut "The Gospel According to Barack Obama" (as the utter COWARDS on that network really shoulkd do, if only to pinot out the EVIL of CNN)? Right. I anyone--say Rush Limbuagh--used the phrase: "The Gospel According to Barack Obama," they would be called RACIST by CNN. As you know, I do not turn the other cheek. So I wil say it. CNN is compsoed of RACISTS and RELIGIOUS BIOGTS. In fact, it is ACCEPTABLE for thew whle left to be RACIST with regard to Hreman Cain--leftists being the primary racests in our society today. One of the reasons I suggest you BOYCOTT the unfair and unablanced network, by the way, is that they not only pretty much fail to "scrutinizae' teh "religion" (lol) of Barack Obama, but they pick up on these attacks on GOP (Grand Outdated Party) members.
You think CNN was through with their anti-Chrisitan bigotry with their RACIST, patronizing (plantation ementality--"gospel" indeed!!!!!) disparagement of Herman Cain? Not a chance. These are partisan, lying BIGOTS. Thus, the discussiion soon went to ridiculing the religiious references of several of teh GOP candidates. For example, it ws noted--again in a tone of ridiclue--that several of the candidates have said they felt a "call" from God to run for President. The CNN implicatioin (I heard this, remember, and I can asure you I am not exaggerating) was theat these candidates hav said they "God told them to rn", and maybe promised them they would win. That, of course, is NOT the way the Christian religion works (to my understanding, as an agnostic who merely knows more aobut the religion than the anti-Christian bigots of CNN). What the Christian religion is all about, if you really believe in it, is receiving GUIDANCE form God. Nope. We are NOT referring here to God "talking to you, like a person talks to you. We are talking aoubt the SPIRIT of God guiding you in your life. If you do not belive in that, then you are NOT a Christian. You may, of course, be an anti-Chrisitan bigot, like the people of CNN (who, like Barack Obama, are NOT Chrisitains, no matter that they may call themselves). All GOP candiates have done is say that they sought guidance from God, in the way that Christians seek such guidance. Now you might not BELIEVE them, or that they really looked for spiritual guidance from God to do what they wanted to do, but then you can't possibly BELIOEVE that Barack Obama is a Chistian, can you? Billl Maher (CNN's favorite atheist) and I (CNN's least favorite agnostic) both do not belivve that Obama is a Chrisitan. But even Bill Maher, and certainly not me, would ot be as :HYPOCRITICAL and DISHONEST about religion andpolitics as the anti-Christian, partisan bigots of CNN.
Q.E.D. CNN is the most dishonest, hypocritical network in the history of TV "news". Thre is just no doubt about it. Oh, and CNN is composed of anti-Christian bigots (at least if you are talking aoubt Christians who actually believe in their religion).
What was CNN talking about this morning? Right. The evil hypoocrites, as usual, were talking abut RELIGION: specificaly the religioin of GOP candidates, and the DETAILS of that religion (for all of the world like CNN,The Anti-Christian Network, believes tahtt eh RELITOIN of GOPcanddiates is a BIG "issue" in the caampaign). Have they told John King, historic liear and hypocrites? Well, they did not need to tell him. As a CNN hypocrite, he already knnew the CNN party line.
What triggered this particular CNN attack on the Christianity of CNN? I could never make this up, and this is why I say I have UNDERSTATED the anti-Christian hypocrisy of CNN. Look at the headline. Did you think that last parenthesis was merely Maverickk Conservative hyperbole Guess again. Oh, the headline LIES, but only for effect (withut fundamentally misrepresenting the evil of CNN). What CN featred this morning was a CNN reporter who wrote an "article' on CNN.com whith this title (really, I could not make this up): "The Gospel According to Herman Cain.." What would CNN/Joh Kng call a person on the unfair and unbalanced network had talked abut "The Gospel According to Barack Obama" (as the utter COWARDS on that network really shoulkd do, if only to pinot out the EVIL of CNN)? Right. I anyone--say Rush Limbuagh--used the phrase: "The Gospel According to Barack Obama," they would be called RACIST by CNN. As you know, I do not turn the other cheek. So I wil say it. CNN is compsoed of RACISTS and RELIGIOUS BIOGTS. In fact, it is ACCEPTABLE for thew whle left to be RACIST with regard to Hreman Cain--leftists being the primary racests in our society today. One of the reasons I suggest you BOYCOTT the unfair and unablanced network, by the way, is that they not only pretty much fail to "scrutinizae' teh "religion" (lol) of Barack Obama, but they pick up on these attacks on GOP (Grand Outdated Party) members.
You think CNN was through with their anti-Chrisitan bigotry with their RACIST, patronizing (plantation ementality--"gospel" indeed!!!!!) disparagement of Herman Cain? Not a chance. These are partisan, lying BIGOTS. Thus, the discussiion soon went to ridiculing the religiious references of several of teh GOP candidates. For example, it ws noted--again in a tone of ridiclue--that several of the candidates have said they felt a "call" from God to run for President. The CNN implicatioin (I heard this, remember, and I can asure you I am not exaggerating) was theat these candidates hav said they "God told them to rn", and maybe promised them they would win. That, of course, is NOT the way the Christian religion works (to my understanding, as an agnostic who merely knows more aobut the religion than the anti-Christian bigots of CNN). What the Christian religion is all about, if you really believe in it, is receiving GUIDANCE form God. Nope. We are NOT referring here to God "talking to you, like a person talks to you. We are talking aoubt the SPIRIT of God guiding you in your life. If you do not belive in that, then you are NOT a Christian. You may, of course, be an anti-Chrisitan bigot, like the people of CNN (who, like Barack Obama, are NOT Chrisitains, no matter that they may call themselves). All GOP candiates have done is say that they sought guidance from God, in the way that Christians seek such guidance. Now you might not BELIEVE them, or that they really looked for spiritual guidance from God to do what they wanted to do, but then you can't possibly BELIOEVE that Barack Obama is a Chistian, can you? Billl Maher (CNN's favorite atheist) and I (CNN's least favorite agnostic) both do not belivve that Obama is a Chrisitan. But even Bill Maher, and certainly not me, would ot be as :HYPOCRITICAL and DISHONEST about religion andpolitics as the anti-Christian, partisan bigots of CNN.
Q.E.D. CNN is the most dishonest, hypocritical network in the history of TV "news". Thre is just no doubt about it. Oh, and CNN is composed of anti-Christian bigots (at least if you are talking aoubt Christians who actually believe in their religion).
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Fox "News": Boycott the Unfair and Unbalanced Network (GOP Betrayal Being Set Up?)
30 seconds is all I could stand to watch of Fox "News" this morning, and it was enough for me to renew my call for a BOYCOTT of Fox "News"--enough to again grant myself an Obama-style waive from this blog's policy of NEVER using the name "Fox" (referring to the disgraceful network only as the "unfair and unabalanced ntetwork"--with "unbalandced" referring to insanity and not to political "balance").
What was the "message" of that 30 seconds? It was the SAME message as the CNN LIES of yesterday, and the mainstream media PROPAGNDA ever since the deficit "supercommittee" was formed. The message is that the "supercommittee" MUST come up with a "deal"--ANY deal, and that the failure to come up with a deal means that all incumbents should be defeated. There is the subsidiary Big Lie--ys, promoted on Fox as well as CNN--that the "Bush tax cuts" are responsible for the deficit. Taht is the very LIE that CNN was promoting yesterday (see llast nitght's article), and the very Big Lie that has been pushed by leftist Demcrats forever. What Fox does is let a leftist Democrat go on and tell this LIE Uunchallegend, and they did so again today. CNN never does that when CONSERVATIVES appear on CNN. CNN CHALLEGNES the conservatives. But the peole of Fox "News' are COWARDS. I kid lyu not. This black woman Democrat (again, the COWARDS on Fox News would NEVER challenge such a person for telling a LIE) specifcally said that the "Bush tax cuts" were only for the top 1% of the popuation That is an outright lIE--one of the worst, most obvius lies I have ever heard. Yet, it is a LIE being pushed by CNN and by leftist Democrats (which is why it is beig pushed by CnNn) As last night's blog article accurately tells you, over ten years 3.3 TRILLIONI dollars of the "Bush tax cuts" "go to " (it is already THEIR MONEY, not the government's money) MIDDLE CALSS and lower incime people. "Ony" 700 billion (over ten years, or 70 billion a year) "goess to" (again it is THEIR MONEY ot the government's) peopel earning over $200,000 a year. It is simply an Orwellian Bg LIE to suggest that the "bush tax cuts" only genefitted the "weathiest 1%" of this country. This LIE is a disaster for this country, if accepted, because it pushes the idea that we can FINANCE a welfare state to take care of 99% of the population with an ever SMALLER number of peole. That is not only a Big lLie, but one that will destory us. And it does NOT "excuse" Fox News that the "host" turns to a suposed "Conservative" to ask whether it is the "Bush tax cuts" which are at fault. Thios blog has told you many times that the GOP (Grand Outdated Party) has FAILIED to point out the LIE about the "Bush tax cuts", and has been strangely reluctant to actually assault the LIES of Democrats the way Democratw are asaulting the GOP. That is because too many of te GOP are FRAUDS who really do ot understand their own argumetns (because they make thsoe arguments not out of conviction but to GET ELECTED). Enovgh about the Bil Lie of the "Bush tax cuts". See last night's article on CNN, and realize that Fox is CNN LIGHT (not worth watching--and 30 seconds is the TOTAL I will watch today). The bigger problem here is the STUPIDITY that a "deal" is all that matters here.
Remember the last time I granted myself an Obma-type wiaver on using the term "Fox News"? It was because Fox had called it a BREAKTHOUGH that the GOP was supposedly willing to talk abut increased tax revenue (which people who ant LOWER tax rates, like myself, have ALWAYS been willng to talk about, but which could never be a "greakthrough") . That was what Fox was all about this morning: the idea that it is the "faiure" to come up with a "deal"--ANY DEAL--that means you should vote against incumbents. That was the position of teh Fox "conservative' guest, and the position Fox has been pushing (along with the rest of teh mainstream media) all along. And it si TUPID. Yes, I jsut called almot every peson on Fox 'News' (especially on the "stright" news side) STUPID. They are just as stupid, if not more so, than the partisans of CNN. The partisans of CNN willnever let a "conservative" come on CNN and TELLL AN OBVIOUS LIE. Fox "News' will. The partisans of CNN will never PUSH a conservative t"talking point". . The STUPID poeple of Fox News will push leftist, mainstream media talkng points (Partly because they aare COWARDS seeking mainstream media approval).
:You think I am exaggerating here? No, I am not. What is the real problem here? If you listened to Fox this morning, you would think that the real problem is not about 'ideology", but about simply "coming together" and making ANY kind of deal. How STUPID can you get. IBEG you. BOYCOTT FOX NEWS (or CNN Light, as I will sometimes refer to them from now on). Waht are Democrats saying? They are saying taht the MAIN problem is that the "wealthy" are not paying enough taxes (CALSS WARFARE). The GOP (without courage) is saying that the MAIN problem is spending, and that we can INCREASE actual government revenue by CUTTING TAX RTES. Democrats are saying that they will accedept NO deal which does not INCREASE the taxes on the wealthy (their class warfare CAMPAIGN tactic). The GOP is saying that they wil only "raise' taxes" as part of "tax reform" --desperate to BETRAY conservatives but not knowing quite how to CONCEAL it. Meanwhile, who is actually trying to CUT SPENDING? I will answer this last question: NO ONE (of the politician kind-a breed whch needs to be EXTINCT).
There is jsut no gettig around this truth, despite the LIARS of Fox News: The "problem" here is NOT to come up with some SHAM that everyone calls a "deal". Democrats have already signgalled that the only "deal" they will accept is a "deal' that does NOT really "cut spending", but does accept the princiiple of taxing the wealthy MORE to "sovle" our problems. Thus, any "breakthrough" on a "deal" will involve a BETRYAL by the GOP of their election promise to CUT SPENDING. What am I saying? The GOP has already engated in that BETRAYAL at least three times. We are talking about yet another BETRAYAL. All the GOP has to do to get a "deal" is to AGREE to Obama's proposal to EXTEND teh"Bush tax cuts' for the MIDDLE CALSS, but to END the "Bush tax cuts" (raise taxes) for "teh wealthy". In effet, Fox (and Wall Street--along with the entire mainstream media) are PUSHING that deal. But that "deal", or some variation of it that tries to CONCEAL the getrayal, means that the GOP might as well GO AWAY. Their election in 2010 would have been proven to be a FRAUD, and no conservative should EVER support the party again. That is ALREADY my position, based on the way this supercommittee was formed in the firt place, but a further BETRAYL by the GOP will make it obvious to many more people (than the "extreme' me) that the GOP must go.
Again, in a way this is all irrelevant rhetoric. It is STUPID to suggest that ALL THAT MATTERS IS A DEAL--no matter what the deal is. Will that attitude "solve" deficits? Will it stop of of going the way of Greece and Italy? Will that attitude reverse, or even slow down, the out-of-control groth of an all-powerful Federl Govenment? Will that attitude do anything about the FATL idea that 1%--see Any Rand, prophet--of the peole can SUPPORT the entire other 99%? Will that atti]tude CUT SPENDING (as the GOP has totallyFAILED to even TRY to do as to CURRENT SPENDING--if "try" is correctly constured to mean FIGHTING for it).? You get the idea. A BAD DEAL is worse than NO BDEAL. And that is NOT a matter of opinion It is an absoutel fact that only the STUPID (Fox news and teh mainstream media, along with Wall Street) would deny. Sure, you can argue ove WHAT is a "bad deal", but you simply cna't argue that ANY deal is a "good deal" (unless you are terminally STUPID, like the poeople of Fox News).
Yes, as Newt Gingrich has correctly said, and Jon Huntsman has said, the real STUPIDITY here is stetting up the "supercomittee" at all These are INSANE people (our politicians--especially our GOP politicians who keep boviously LYING by syaing that they are "fighting" for reduced spending and contorl of government and deficits)--using the Einsein definition of insanity: "doing the smae thing over and over again, expecting a different result".. Our politicians are not only shwoing they are INSANE according to Einstein, but they are showing they do not BELIEVE LINCOLN: "You cna fuool all of the people some of the time; you can fool some of the people allof teh time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Our politicians have tried this time and time again, most recently with teh OBAMA DEBT COMMISSION. Why would they expect a different result? We NEED to decide what direction we are going to go as a country. That needs to be decided in PUBLIC DEBATE. You are STUPID, and don't even believe in our concept of representatvie democracy, if you think the thing to do is to FOOL peope into believeing that they have NO CHOICE but to approve of what a FEW peole have decided behind closed doors. The Obama health care bill? Last minute behiind doors DECEIT. The debt ceiling deal? Lat minute, behind doors DECEIT. The 2011 budget deal? Last minute, behind cldsed doors DECIET. Note that the GOP has been a PARTY to al of this deceit, EXCEPT the Obama halth-care bill (which Democrats rammed through all on their own). Deficit expanding "deal" at the end of 2010, adding 100 BILLIOIN to the defict over ONE YEAR by this "payroll tax cut" TIMMICK which did not work? Last minute DECEIT (which the GOP assured us was "necessary" to "save" the "Bush tax cuts' which Fox and the GOP are now putting AT RISK). IT just goes on and on. And notice that the PROBLEM here is not what happens if there is NO DEAL. The problem here is what happens if there is a POLITICAL DEAL that is meant to be a DECEIT and a SHAM (by one "side' or the other, or by BOTH SIDES).
No. I am calling you STUPID if you say someting like this, as seemed to be the "official" Fox position this mornign (and long before this morning): "The supercommittee has had more than enough time to come up with a deal, The American peole expect them to be able to do that. This is not a matter of Republican or Dmemocrat. It is a matter of politicians working for the benefit of this coutnry rather than politics or ideology. They need to do what it takes to get a deal,"
Noope. If you say somethig like that, I am direclty calling you STUPID. What you are saying is that ANY DEAL is all it takes to sovle our problems. That is INSANE. It is obviiuisly not ture. In fact, it is not ture that there is such a thing as "no ideology" If you actually belive that AnY DEAL is better than no deal, stupid as that is, you have an IDEOLOGY. "Cutting spending" is an IDEOLOGY. "Raising taxes on the rich" is an IDEOLOGY. "Raisning taxes on the rich AND cutting spnding" is an IDEOLOGY levaing you hopen to being PROVEN to be naive and STUPID. That is becuase the taxes GET RAISED, but the spending never gets actually "cut'.
By the way, I expect a GOP BETRAYAL, pushed by the IDIOTS like those on Fox News and on Wall Street (those economic fasicsts that think they now control tghis country, and MYAY be right). But if there is no such betrayal, you can actually "blame" the Democrats. The GOP actually does want to BETRAY tghe peole who voted for them. Democrats are just not letatig them. The GOP wants a "face-aving' SHAM deal, like all of tghe otehrs, that SELLS OUT their voters. But Democrats wnat an ISSUE for the 2012 election. They think that CLASS WARFARE is that issue, along with the "stubborn" GOP who wohn't "compromise" (lol). Yes, it is the Dmoecrats ho are rally refuisng to COMPROMISE on the acceptance of their 'prinicple' taht our lproblems are becaue of the rich" not paying their "fair share". But the media will SPIN it always to make the GOP the villains for "no deal", because the mainstream media are ADVOCATES for teh Democrat positon. You can take my word for it, hough, as a person who has WALKED AWAY from the GOP already: the GOP will enter into a SHAM deal here to basically "cave in" to tahe Democrats, if the Democrats will let them. The problem the GOP has is that the Democrats do not seem inclined to let them off the hook they have put themselves on, unless the GOP OBVIOUSLY betrays its voters (and thereby destorys the GOP). This is what the Democrats regard as a WINNING TACTIC here, and the GOP has played into their hand by seetting \this up. But make no mistake: if there really is no deal, you can balme the Democrats by wanting the ISSUE more than they want some kind of half-victory.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I am serius here. I have been limiting myself to 3 minutes searching Fox "News" a day, jsut to keep up with their PERFIDY and incompetence. I was only able to make 30 seconds today, and that weill be ALL for today . I am be\gging you: BOYCOTT FOX NEWS. Look at Drudge for a variety of "news'. Listen to Rush Limbuagh, if you want actual conservative "news'. Forget Fox. They are USELESS for real facts and real informatin, and certainly useless for challenging lefitst lies. As with ost GOP memebers of Congrss, I would not murn the demise of Fox News (because now something would replace them as an "alternative" to the mainstream partisans--which would not have been ture even 10 or 15 years ago, when the mainstream media sitll had actual power). Well, my waiver has expired, and this blog is back to the "unfair and unbalanced network" , a/k/a CNN Light.
What was the "message" of that 30 seconds? It was the SAME message as the CNN LIES of yesterday, and the mainstream media PROPAGNDA ever since the deficit "supercommittee" was formed. The message is that the "supercommittee" MUST come up with a "deal"--ANY deal, and that the failure to come up with a deal means that all incumbents should be defeated. There is the subsidiary Big Lie--ys, promoted on Fox as well as CNN--that the "Bush tax cuts" are responsible for the deficit. Taht is the very LIE that CNN was promoting yesterday (see llast nitght's article), and the very Big Lie that has been pushed by leftist Demcrats forever. What Fox does is let a leftist Democrat go on and tell this LIE Uunchallegend, and they did so again today. CNN never does that when CONSERVATIVES appear on CNN. CNN CHALLEGNES the conservatives. But the peole of Fox "News' are COWARDS. I kid lyu not. This black woman Democrat (again, the COWARDS on Fox News would NEVER challenge such a person for telling a LIE) specifcally said that the "Bush tax cuts" were only for the top 1% of the popuation That is an outright lIE--one of the worst, most obvius lies I have ever heard. Yet, it is a LIE being pushed by CNN and by leftist Democrats (which is why it is beig pushed by CnNn) As last night's blog article accurately tells you, over ten years 3.3 TRILLIONI dollars of the "Bush tax cuts" "go to " (it is already THEIR MONEY, not the government's money) MIDDLE CALSS and lower incime people. "Ony" 700 billion (over ten years, or 70 billion a year) "goess to" (again it is THEIR MONEY ot the government's) peopel earning over $200,000 a year. It is simply an Orwellian Bg LIE to suggest that the "bush tax cuts" only genefitted the "weathiest 1%" of this country. This LIE is a disaster for this country, if accepted, because it pushes the idea that we can FINANCE a welfare state to take care of 99% of the population with an ever SMALLER number of peole. That is not only a Big lLie, but one that will destory us. And it does NOT "excuse" Fox News that the "host" turns to a suposed "Conservative" to ask whether it is the "Bush tax cuts" which are at fault. Thios blog has told you many times that the GOP (Grand Outdated Party) has FAILIED to point out the LIE about the "Bush tax cuts", and has been strangely reluctant to actually assault the LIES of Democrats the way Democratw are asaulting the GOP. That is because too many of te GOP are FRAUDS who really do ot understand their own argumetns (because they make thsoe arguments not out of conviction but to GET ELECTED). Enovgh about the Bil Lie of the "Bush tax cuts". See last night's article on CNN, and realize that Fox is CNN LIGHT (not worth watching--and 30 seconds is the TOTAL I will watch today). The bigger problem here is the STUPIDITY that a "deal" is all that matters here.
Remember the last time I granted myself an Obma-type wiaver on using the term "Fox News"? It was because Fox had called it a BREAKTHOUGH that the GOP was supposedly willing to talk abut increased tax revenue (which people who ant LOWER tax rates, like myself, have ALWAYS been willng to talk about, but which could never be a "greakthrough") . That was what Fox was all about this morning: the idea that it is the "faiure" to come up with a "deal"--ANY DEAL--that means you should vote against incumbents. That was the position of teh Fox "conservative' guest, and the position Fox has been pushing (along with the rest of teh mainstream media) all along. And it si TUPID. Yes, I jsut called almot every peson on Fox 'News' (especially on the "stright" news side) STUPID. They are just as stupid, if not more so, than the partisans of CNN. The partisans of CNN willnever let a "conservative" come on CNN and TELLL AN OBVIOUS LIE. Fox "News' will. The partisans of CNN will never PUSH a conservative t"talking point". . The STUPID poeple of Fox News will push leftist, mainstream media talkng points (Partly because they aare COWARDS seeking mainstream media approval).
:You think I am exaggerating here? No, I am not. What is the real problem here? If you listened to Fox this morning, you would think that the real problem is not about 'ideology", but about simply "coming together" and making ANY kind of deal. How STUPID can you get. IBEG you. BOYCOTT FOX NEWS (or CNN Light, as I will sometimes refer to them from now on). Waht are Democrats saying? They are saying taht the MAIN problem is that the "wealthy" are not paying enough taxes (CALSS WARFARE). The GOP (without courage) is saying that the MAIN problem is spending, and that we can INCREASE actual government revenue by CUTTING TAX RTES. Democrats are saying that they will accedept NO deal which does not INCREASE the taxes on the wealthy (their class warfare CAMPAIGN tactic). The GOP is saying that they wil only "raise' taxes" as part of "tax reform" --desperate to BETRAY conservatives but not knowing quite how to CONCEAL it. Meanwhile, who is actually trying to CUT SPENDING? I will answer this last question: NO ONE (of the politician kind-a breed whch needs to be EXTINCT).
There is jsut no gettig around this truth, despite the LIARS of Fox News: The "problem" here is NOT to come up with some SHAM that everyone calls a "deal". Democrats have already signgalled that the only "deal" they will accept is a "deal' that does NOT really "cut spending", but does accept the princiiple of taxing the wealthy MORE to "sovle" our problems. Thus, any "breakthrough" on a "deal" will involve a BETRYAL by the GOP of their election promise to CUT SPENDING. What am I saying? The GOP has already engated in that BETRAYAL at least three times. We are talking about yet another BETRAYAL. All the GOP has to do to get a "deal" is to AGREE to Obama's proposal to EXTEND teh"Bush tax cuts' for the MIDDLE CALSS, but to END the "Bush tax cuts" (raise taxes) for "teh wealthy". In effet, Fox (and Wall Street--along with the entire mainstream media) are PUSHING that deal. But that "deal", or some variation of it that tries to CONCEAL the getrayal, means that the GOP might as well GO AWAY. Their election in 2010 would have been proven to be a FRAUD, and no conservative should EVER support the party again. That is ALREADY my position, based on the way this supercommittee was formed in the firt place, but a further BETRAYL by the GOP will make it obvious to many more people (than the "extreme' me) that the GOP must go.
Again, in a way this is all irrelevant rhetoric. It is STUPID to suggest that ALL THAT MATTERS IS A DEAL--no matter what the deal is. Will that attitude "solve" deficits? Will it stop of of going the way of Greece and Italy? Will that attitude reverse, or even slow down, the out-of-control groth of an all-powerful Federl Govenment? Will that attitude do anything about the FATL idea that 1%--see Any Rand, prophet--of the peole can SUPPORT the entire other 99%? Will that atti]tude CUT SPENDING (as the GOP has totallyFAILED to even TRY to do as to CURRENT SPENDING--if "try" is correctly constured to mean FIGHTING for it).? You get the idea. A BAD DEAL is worse than NO BDEAL. And that is NOT a matter of opinion It is an absoutel fact that only the STUPID (Fox news and teh mainstream media, along with Wall Street) would deny. Sure, you can argue ove WHAT is a "bad deal", but you simply cna't argue that ANY deal is a "good deal" (unless you are terminally STUPID, like the poeople of Fox News).
Yes, as Newt Gingrich has correctly said, and Jon Huntsman has said, the real STUPIDITY here is stetting up the "supercomittee" at all These are INSANE people (our politicians--especially our GOP politicians who keep boviously LYING by syaing that they are "fighting" for reduced spending and contorl of government and deficits)--using the Einsein definition of insanity: "doing the smae thing over and over again, expecting a different result".. Our politicians are not only shwoing they are INSANE according to Einstein, but they are showing they do not BELIEVE LINCOLN: "You cna fuool all of the people some of the time; you can fool some of the people allof teh time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Our politicians have tried this time and time again, most recently with teh OBAMA DEBT COMMISSION. Why would they expect a different result? We NEED to decide what direction we are going to go as a country. That needs to be decided in PUBLIC DEBATE. You are STUPID, and don't even believe in our concept of representatvie democracy, if you think the thing to do is to FOOL peope into believeing that they have NO CHOICE but to approve of what a FEW peole have decided behind closed doors. The Obama health care bill? Last minute behiind doors DECEIT. The debt ceiling deal? Lat minute, behind doors DECEIT. The 2011 budget deal? Last minute, behind cldsed doors DECIET. Note that the GOP has been a PARTY to al of this deceit, EXCEPT the Obama halth-care bill (which Democrats rammed through all on their own). Deficit expanding "deal" at the end of 2010, adding 100 BILLIOIN to the defict over ONE YEAR by this "payroll tax cut" TIMMICK which did not work? Last minute DECEIT (which the GOP assured us was "necessary" to "save" the "Bush tax cuts' which Fox and the GOP are now putting AT RISK). IT just goes on and on. And notice that the PROBLEM here is not what happens if there is NO DEAL. The problem here is what happens if there is a POLITICAL DEAL that is meant to be a DECEIT and a SHAM (by one "side' or the other, or by BOTH SIDES).
No. I am calling you STUPID if you say someting like this, as seemed to be the "official" Fox position this mornign (and long before this morning): "The supercommittee has had more than enough time to come up with a deal, The American peole expect them to be able to do that. This is not a matter of Republican or Dmemocrat. It is a matter of politicians working for the benefit of this coutnry rather than politics or ideology. They need to do what it takes to get a deal,"
Noope. If you say somethig like that, I am direclty calling you STUPID. What you are saying is that ANY DEAL is all it takes to sovle our problems. That is INSANE. It is obviiuisly not ture. In fact, it is not ture that there is such a thing as "no ideology" If you actually belive that AnY DEAL is better than no deal, stupid as that is, you have an IDEOLOGY. "Cutting spending" is an IDEOLOGY. "Raising taxes on the rich" is an IDEOLOGY. "Raisning taxes on the rich AND cutting spnding" is an IDEOLOGY levaing you hopen to being PROVEN to be naive and STUPID. That is becuase the taxes GET RAISED, but the spending never gets actually "cut'.
By the way, I expect a GOP BETRAYAL, pushed by the IDIOTS like those on Fox News and on Wall Street (those economic fasicsts that think they now control tghis country, and MYAY be right). But if there is no such betrayal, you can actually "blame" the Democrats. The GOP actually does want to BETRAY tghe peole who voted for them. Democrats are just not letatig them. The GOP wants a "face-aving' SHAM deal, like all of tghe otehrs, that SELLS OUT their voters. But Democrats wnat an ISSUE for the 2012 election. They think that CLASS WARFARE is that issue, along with the "stubborn" GOP who wohn't "compromise" (lol). Yes, it is the Dmoecrats ho are rally refuisng to COMPROMISE on the acceptance of their 'prinicple' taht our lproblems are becaue of the rich" not paying their "fair share". But the media will SPIN it always to make the GOP the villains for "no deal", because the mainstream media are ADVOCATES for teh Democrat positon. You can take my word for it, hough, as a person who has WALKED AWAY from the GOP already: the GOP will enter into a SHAM deal here to basically "cave in" to tahe Democrats, if the Democrats will let them. The problem the GOP has is that the Democrats do not seem inclined to let them off the hook they have put themselves on, unless the GOP OBVIOUSLY betrays its voters (and thereby destorys the GOP). This is what the Democrats regard as a WINNING TACTIC here, and the GOP has played into their hand by seetting \this up. But make no mistake: if there really is no deal, you can balme the Democrats by wanting the ISSUE more than they want some kind of half-victory.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I am serius here. I have been limiting myself to 3 minutes searching Fox "News" a day, jsut to keep up with their PERFIDY and incompetence. I was only able to make 30 seconds today, and that weill be ALL for today . I am be\gging you: BOYCOTT FOX NEWS. Look at Drudge for a variety of "news'. Listen to Rush Limbuagh, if you want actual conservative "news'. Forget Fox. They are USELESS for real facts and real informatin, and certainly useless for challenging lefitst lies. As with ost GOP memebers of Congrss, I would not murn the demise of Fox News (because now something would replace them as an "alternative" to the mainstream partisans--which would not have been ture even 10 or 15 years ago, when the mainstream media sitll had actual power). Well, my waiver has expired, and this blog is back to the "unfair and unbalanced network" , a/k/a CNN Light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)