A 2nd Term

from here:

A Budget/ Fiscal Cliff Deal

from Politico:

The emerging fiscal cliff deal is enough to leave Republicans with a major New Year’s hangover.

The package being negotiated by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Joe Biden amounts to a defeat for the GOP on multiple fronts.

It not only raises tax rates, but also extends stimulus-era tax policy, prolongs emergency unemployment benefits, maintains targeted tax breaks derided by the party as corporate handouts and revives limits on deductions for the wealthy that have been dormant for almost a decade — all policies that the GOP has fought. It’s expected to raise $600 billion over 10 years.

Just so we all understand:

1. This deal would reduce the deficit by $600 billion over ten years
2. The 2012 federal budget deficit was $1.1 trillion

So this great new budget proposal would make up about half this year's deficit if it worked all of its magic this year, but it will be more like $60 billion in deficit reduction this year.

More things to know:

1. Our taxes are going up
2. New Obamacare taxes are being added
3. Businesses will not be hiring
4. The government doesn't even have a vague hope of balancing this year's budget deficit

The most important point to understand:

You idiots voted for this.

Our Guns Will Be Taken

It was not a surprise that the response of the New York Times to the Connecticut public-school shootings was to run, not one, not two, not three, but four editorials calling for yet another push for gun control. The mainstream media have been waiting literally years for something like this to happen, and they are not about to let such a crisis go to waste.

Don’t give them an inch. Cut them no slack. Punch back twice as hard. When they bring the knife of emotional blackmail to the argument, draw your .50 caliber Desert Eagle of facts, logic and history and blow them away without mercy.

No, Americans will never give them up; he who surrenders his unalienable right to arms also gives up his right to call himself an American.

-Vox Day

Thanks to the school shooting the government, that you voted for, will make several attempts to ban or restrict gun ownership.

Understand that any attempt to restrict or ban any gun means a lessening of our freedom.

Banning gun ownership was a first step before the Holocaust and every other genocide this century.  Understand that this is what can happen when guns are taken from the people:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany  established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China  established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Now is not the time to stay quiet on an issue.  If our guns are taken or restricted, we will be completely defenseless against the government.  We could become the next country on the above list.

You say, "that won't happen here."

But why not?

The government has already stated that killing American citizens is acceptable.

The government is already spying on us with unmanned drones.

What is to prevent the government from killing you if it feels like it?

Its has done so in the past. 

Most famous example: "Seventy-six men, women and children, including the sect leader, David Koresh, died in the fire."

Second most famous example: "Ruby Ridge was the site of a deadly confrontation and siege in northern Idaho in 1992 because Randy Weaver refused to be an informant for the federal government. It involved Weaver, his family, Weaver's friend Kevin Harris, and agents of the United States Marshals Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation. It resulted in the death of Weaver's son Sammy, his wife Vicki, their family dog Striker, and Deputy US Marshal William Francis Degan."

Understand that those are only the two most famous cases.  The American Government has killed civilian Americans repeatedly.

***

If you are in a situation where you are talking to someone who favors restricting, or banning, any guns, then it is your responsibility, as an American, to correct that person.

We know gun control doesn't work; all of the recent publicized shootings occurred in "gun free zones."

The problem is the people who do the shooting not the guns.

What did recent shooters like Adam Lanza, Jared Lee Loughner, and James Holmes have in common? They were disturbed young men that no law could deter from their intended destruction. Why were the warning signs ignored? All of these men were clearly troubled, all three were on medication. Loughner’s warning signs went ignored. We don’t yet know if Lanza’s family knew he was experiencing problems or if they witnessed warning signs. Holmes was severely medicated and apparently abused his regimen.

- Dana Loesch

Inform a confused person that guns also save lives.  But a gun saving a life is not as newsworthy and you have not heard such stories, even though they occur daily.

Examples from the past five days:

Ohio Homeowner Shoots and Kills Burglar Who Also Broke Into Neighboring Apartment

[Video] Oregon Mall Shooter May Have Been Stopped by Concealed Carrier

TX Homeowner Shoots Knife Wielding Home Invader While on the Phone with 911

MS Resident Shoots Burglar Who Tries to Escape From 3rd Story Balcony

[Video] 77 Year Old Atlanta Grandmother Opens Fire on Burglar

[Video] 81 Year Old Detroit Man Fights Off Intruder With Antique .22 Revolver

[Video] Texas Store Clerk Shoots Knife Wielding Armed Robber on Crime Spree

Guns, potentially, saved lives in each of those cases during the last five days.

Look at this video and ask yourself what the outcome would have been if this armed 71 year old man had not saved the day.  This is actual video of a senior citizen saving the day about the time of the Aurora shooting, and I'll bet that you never heard about it.  This happens every day in this country and many people want you to be unarmed!

***


If you are in a situation where you are talking to someone who wants to ban, or restrict, any guns, then you must correct them.  Or watch your freedom disappear.

Points to argue:

1. Point to the stories where guns saved lives.  This website lists such stories.

2. Point out that the 2nd amendment exists because the founders of our country wanted the people to be able to overthrow the government if the government turned on the people.  The founders of our country used guns to get rid of British control of our country, and they wanted future Americans to have the same option.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

- Samuel Adams

The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government

-Thomas Jefferson

3. Point out that the states that have more gun control have more murders than their neighboring states.  The "neighboring states" part is important because by comparing neighboring states we can compare similar places.  Your opponent may point to the murder rate in other countries, but this is misleading.  You cannot compare the crime rate of a country of 3 million whites to a country of 310 million people of all races and backgrounds.

4. Point out that "assault weapon" is a political term to sound scary and gain support for their banning.  No person who knows anything about guns will describe one as an "assault weapon."  Guns may be described as fully automatic, semi automatic, lever, pump, bolt, etc.  But "assault weapon" has no meaning except as a political one.

The Clinton Gun Ban (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) was the last time an "assault weapon" was defined. 

Look at the definition of an "assault weapon" and understand that an "assault weapon" is a gun that looks scary not a gun that is meaningfully different from a gun that is often used to hunt ducks, deer, turkeys, etc.

Note that a pistol that weighs more than 50 oz and has a flash suppressor counts as an "assault weapon."  How does weight make a gun more dangerous?  If the anti-gun people are were arguing against some handguns because they weigh more than 50 oz, they would be rightly ignored because banning a gun because it is heavy is stupid.  And yet that is what they are doing; they get away with it because they call them "assault weapons."

For more stupidity in the definition look at what makes a shotgun an "assault weapon."

According to the definition this is an "assault weapon" (pistol grip + hold more than 5 rounds):



And this shotgun does not qualify as an "assault weapon":






Except for how it looks, these two guns are the same.  They work the same, most of the parts are the same. They are the same!

But the people who want to ban our guns think the one on top is scary and should be banned, despite their being no meaningful difference between them.

You say, "if there is no difference, then why do you care if one gets banned?"

I care, and so should you, because if there is no difference, why would we restrict the freedom of the people.  How can we live in a free country if our freedoms are restricted?

A more accurate definition of "assault weapon" is: “It’s black and makes us poopoo in our panties!”

Alternate names for gun bans:

* The Piss Off People with Guns Act
* The Not All the Nazis’ Ideas Were Bad Act
* The Disarming Law Abiding People Sure Is Easier than Disarming Criminals Act
* The Sissies Scared of Loud Noise Act
* The Freedom Is too Scary Act
* The Ban as Many Guns as We Can Trick People into Allowing Act
* The I Don’t Know Crap About Guns, But I’m Told These Ones Are Bad Act
* The Impossible to Vote for If You Have Functioning Male Parts Act

4. Point out that when someone who knows nothing about guns want to ban "only some" guns what they think that they want banned is fully automatic weapons (multiple shots with one trigger pull).  Fully automatic weapons have been illegal since the National Firearms act of 1934.

Why should we add a new law to ban something that is already banned?

5. Point out that the recent shootings occurred in "gun free zones."  Only the people who follow the law were unarmed by the laws.

Criminals don't care if they break one more law.  Why disarm peaceful citizens if criminals are not disarmed too?

By doing so the criminals are put at an advantage, and the law abiding citizens need to hope that there is a cop around.  And hopefully a cop that shoots the criminal not the law abiding citizen. (Just for starters.)

6. Point out that even if we got rid of all gun, crazy people will still kill and injure children and adults.

On the very same day as the CT shooting a crazy person in China stabbed 22 children.

Raise your hand if you heard about this.  Our media is complicit in helping support the government when it comes to restricting our freedoms.

Banning guns does not end violence.

***

Some advice for debating people:

1. You will not convince the person that you are debating.
2. You might convince a witness to the debate.
3. Name calling and insults from you are unacceptable and will encourage the other side.
4. If you do not get called names and insulted by your opponent, then you are not debating right.
5. Mercilessly attack their arguments, not their person.
6. You demeanor must be polite, cheerful, and in good humor.
7. You should not get mad, for any reason.  
8. If you argue that guns are good, then the facts are on your side.
9. Stay positive and stay focused, look for the flaws in their arguments and destroy them with your words.

If you need any help finding sources or argument for debate, then contact me or any other blogger who favors guns for assistance.  You may find links to other gun supporting bloggers in my sidebar.

***

This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.

-Adolph Hitler

If you say or do nothing while the left comes for our guns, then you cannot call yourself an American, or a man.

Unemployment Numbers

Thanks to Captain Capitalism we can see what our unemployment numbers are:

I'm shocked, shocked that the official government oops numbers went abnormally low just before the re-election of our savior B. Hussein Obama!

Shocked, I say!

Huffington Post Comments, 12/3/2012, Part II

I don't think that my fellow Huffington Post commenters appreciate how sweet and lovable I am. :(

DianneinCA

Great analysis. I don't think the currant Republican party is capable of turning itself around and becoming a legitimate working political party. Crazy sells and the base is buying. 

Me

If "the base is buying," then doesn't that mean a political party with a large part of the American electorate supporting it is "a legitimate working political party"?

Your comment seems to contradict itself.

DianneinCA

Having a shrinking base that is crazy does not equate to a legitimate working political party, it equates to an asylum.  Your party is becoming a regional party unable to win national elections.  Accept it or work to change it. 

Me

Why do so many commenters today claim that republicans are "crazy"? Many of you that I've interacted with today have used that same word. Its almost as if it is a democratic talking point...hmmm.

Just two years ago the election results were the other way around.

Obama won by a couple of percent. The democrats won, but just because they won this time does not mean it won't be the other way around next time.

I take offense to the claim that the republican party is mine. If it were my party, then Romney would not have been anywhere near to the republican nominee. He is too far to the left.

I don't have a political party. Both parties, that will win the elections, favor restricting our freedoms and neither have even a vague hope passing a balanced budget.

I didn't vote for either healthcare socializer. I'm just going to watch the country spend and regulate itself into oblivion. 

***

Me

If "the base is buying," then doesn't that mean a political party with a large part of the American electorate supporting it is "a legitimate working political party"?

Your comment seems to contradict itself.

docwindprod

think it through: the "base" is the hard right-wing that turns out for the primaries.... not the entire registered GOP, which is actually shrinking as embarrassed/mortified moderates try to scrape off the stigma of that "brand".

the "base" is loud and hostile, but it neither populous nor likely to grow any time soon; its core values run contrary to what most americans actually believe, and more and more americans are being repulsed by its excesses. 

Me

Not all of those who voted for republicans in the past but did not vote this time stopped because the party was too far to the right. I voted for republicans in the past but I did not vote this time because both Romney and Obama have signed socialized healthcare into law and both favor gun restrictions.

The numbers I heard were Obama got 8 million fewer votes than he did in '08, and Romney got 3 million fewer than McCain got.

The public, I think, is tired of politicians who seem to be incompetent. When was the last time any budget was signed into law?

The democrats' base seems "loud and hostile" to us on the right. I'm not surprised that those of you on the left think the right is "loud and hostile."

I seriously doubt that the republican core values are different from the general public. On marijuana and gay marriage maybe. But I'd bet that the majority of Americans favor a balanced budget, lower taxes, etc.

If you want to talk about excesses, then I'll point you to the 2,000+ page Obamacare law, or the fact that the smallest budget deficit under Obama has been three times larger than Bush's biggest. 

***
Me:

Can you name one "lie" Paul Ryan has told? Just because you don't like a politician does not mean that he/she lies.

rivers2bx

It would be faster to try and ascertain when Lyin'Ryan said something that was actually true. 

Me:

I appreciate that you'd rather resort to name calling than actual arguments. It must be terrible to have no actual arguments to support your opinions. :( 

***
Me:

I do like how your article claims Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman as the best republican candidates this year. Interesting how they were the most democrat-like in their positions.

I wonder why a democrat would like the republicans who most favor democrat positions?

Shauni Waterdragon

Meaning that the majority of Republicans don't favor the current crop of Republican ideals. 

Me:

"Meaning that the majority of Republicans don't favor the current crop of Republican" candidates.

Fixed it. 

***
Demonthenes

I saw another commentator remarking that "tea party two" is going to be even bigger than the first time.

I think they were right. If we go over this cliff because of republicans holding tax cuts for the rich to hostage for a deal, the tea party will vote very clearly for the democrats next time.

The gerrymandering won't matter as much when average americans of all stripes see you raise their tax rates because you won't budge on taxes for the rich.

Me

Why would a group of people who are opposed to government spending and deficits vote for the democrats who have not passed any budget in years and who spend more than do republicans?

Floyd Hammond

Actually if you look at recent history, going back to Reagan, Republicans spend more than Democrats. 

Me:

The republicans do indeed spend too much, that is one of several reasons that I do not support the republicans.

As to your claim, let's look at the actual numbers (table 1):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

Most amount of spending under W (2008): $2,982,544,000,000
Largest federal deficit under W (2008): $458,553,000,000

Smallest amount of spending under Obama (2010): $3,456,213,000,000
Smallest federal deficit under Obama (2010): $1,293,489,000,000

Summary: Spending has gone up under Obama. The annual deficit is triple the highest deficit under W.

The balanced budget under Clinton occurred with a republican house majority. 

Huffington Post Comments, 12/3/2012

Good news!

Its time once again to see what the friendly commenters at the Huffington Post have said in response to your sweet, lovable, warm, and fuzzy blog author!

oneblessedman

All true. It was the party's far right ball and chain tied to Romney's foot. But, old Mitt didn't help by picking lyin Ryan, the tax thing, or his constant flip flops. He seemed all to scripted and out of touch. 

Me:

Can you name one "lie" Paul Ryan has told? Just because you don't like a politician does not mean that he/she lies.

Patty Flaherty 

Washing clean pots and pans wearing a pristine apron in a homeless shelter for the photo-op comes to mind. 

Me:

How is a photo-op a lie?

A lie would be me saying that I am 6'4".

Being misleading would be standing on a box next to a ruler that shows I'm 6'4".

Photo-ops, all of them, are misleading, not lies.

Cool name though.

***

Me:

Can you name one "lie" Paul Ryan has told? Just because you don't like a politician does not mean that he/she lies.

Katrin55

He lied about his marathon times and was caught out and had to back-pedal. He also perpetuated the whole Medicaid/medicare lie (Obama's stealing $700 billion, etc.) that even Fox News finally admitted wasn't true. He said publicly that "rape is rape" yet supported the "legitimate rape" idea privately in a bill outlawing all abortions and creating personhood for fetuses. He also perpetuated the "Obama's ending work requirements to receive welfare" lie. Oh, and he's bad at math, which isn't a lie, but should be a disqualifier for working on fiscal reform.

Me:

I'm afraid that I did not follow him close enough to know that he even ran marathons. Could you give a source for how he lied about specific marathon times? Isn't it possible that what he claimed for one marathon time was true, but he had a different time for a different marathon?

It seems to me that the $716 billion that we are talking about comes from two sides arguing over projections of money spent. Obama's interpretation of Obamacare is that Medicare spending will go down. The republican's interpretation is that Obamacare will take some spending that would have otherwise gone to medicare. I don't see a lie here, more of a debate over what will happen with the 2000+ pages of Obamacare. Its so big and complex there are different interpretations.

Claiming "rape is rape" and opposing abortion is not lying. At worst it is being inconsistent. It seems that Ryan thinks "rape is rape" and abortion is bad. Where's the "lie"?

The welfare work requirements could be a lie, I have not researched it.

How is he bad at math? If it were up to me, I'd remove the president and everyone in congress in the past 3 years because they did not pass any budget and are therefore incompetent.

 ***

Me:

Can you name one "lie" Paul Ryan has told? Just because you don't like a politician does not mean that he/she lies.

girlwild

Don't let the facts hit you in the rear.  

Me:

Thanks for all of the facts that you posted in your comment.

A claim was made that a person was a lair.

I asked when did he lie?

How is your claim enlightening, or interesting, or useful in determining weather or not the person in question has lied?

 ***

Me:

Can you name one "lie" Paul Ryan has told? Just because you don't like a politician does not mean that he/she lies.

strothersgirl03

If you tried watching something besides Fox "news",

you wouldn't have needed to ask. 

Me:

Here we have a situation where someone who did NOT vote for Romney/ Ryan asked a reasonable question: where has Ryan lied? And instead of listing places that he lied, or arguing that what he says is misleading, you have decided to insult me.

If your goal was to convince someone, me or someone reading these comments, that your opinions are correct do you think that your insult presents a good argument for your side?

BTW, I have not turned on a tv since November of 2011.

 ***
Me:

Can you name one "lie" Paul Ryan has told? Just because you don't like a politician does not mean that he/she lies.

oneblessedman

I do you better and name 3 lies.   Ryan said #1The Affordable Care Act is a government takeover of healthcare. #2 President Obama promised unemployment below 8 percent #3 President Obama disrespected Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu....all proven falsehoods and there are many more. Question for you...Why couldn't he win his own state?

Me:

#1 How is a law that interferes with preventative care, requires government run insurance exchanges, creates rules for pre-existing conditions, etc... not government interfering (otherwise known as taking over) the decisions made in healthcare?

#2 A report from the Obama administration projected that unemployment would be much below 8% so long as we passed the stimulus.

http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

We have seen our unemployment, just barely below 8%. And that is only if you ignore all of the people who have dropped out of the workforce because they cannot find a job.

#3 Could you be more specific?

If you are wondering why Wisconsin voted for the democrat in this past election (just like every election for more than the last 25 years) despite Paul Ryan being on the ticket, then I'll give you my perspective. I, a Wisconsinite, did not vote for Romney because I did not want to vote for someone who signed socialized healthcare into law and who favors gun control.

Romney is moderate on the issues and many of us on the right did not want to vote for someone who would have been only marginally better than Obama. (As hard as that is to believe possible.)

http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/11/lets-look-at-good-news.html

***

js58

I disagree. Huntsman was by far the better candidate. Perhaps not to the lunacy of the Republican Party. 

Me:

By "better candidate" do you mean most democrat-like candidate? If so then you are correct.

Shauni Waterdragon

No, by "better candidate" js58 means, "not crazy" and "not sketchy". Means a Republican an Independent like myself could consider voting for. 

Me:

Are you saying that all of the potential republican candidates, excepting Huntsman, are "crazy" and/ or "sketchy"?

Forgive me for asking this, have you ever voted for a republican for president? 

***

Me:

By "better candidate" do you mean most democrat-like candidate? If so then you are correct.

traffic

If, by "most democrat-like canidate" you mean sane, then YOU are correct.

Me:

Why would you suggest that all of the other potential republican nominees are insane?

I dislike Obama and, it seems, all of the democrats but I don't think that any of them are insane. Some of them are quite a bit dim:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

But not insane. You would have to be a bit odd to run for public office.

Thanks for the compliment. I'm always correct.

http://spootville.blogspot.com/

Make the Rich Pay "Their Fair Share"

It seems that libertarians and conservatives agree that the republicans need to let the democrats tax the rich in order not to get blamed for our economy.

from Reason:

There is no chance of a "balanced approach" on debt when you have no leverage. If these Republicans, unprepared for political warfare at this level, lose a game of fiscal cliff chicken, they will take the blame for across-the-board tax hikes. Obama won't be held culpable for holding the economy hostage over some piddling revenue from the rich. He won't be blamed for the ensuing recession. The media will be too busy investigating obstructionism and applauding the president's gleaming new tax plan.

from Ann Coulter:

Unless Republicans and Democrats reach an agreement, the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year. By pushing to extend the tax cuts for everyone except "the rich," Democrats get to look like champions of middle class tax cuts and Republicans can be portrayed as caring only about the rich.

And when the economy tanks, the Non-Fox Media will blame Republicans.

The economy will tank because, as you will recall, Obama is still president. Government rules, regulations, restrictions, forms and inspections are about to drown the productive sector. Obamacare is descending on job creators like a fly swatter on a gnat. Obama has already managed to produce the only "recovery" that is worse than the preceding recession since the Great Depression. And he says, "You ain't seen nothing yet."

The coming economic collapse is written in the stars, but if Republicans "obstruct" the Democrats by blocking tax hikes on top income earners, they're going to take 100 percent of the blame for the Obama economy.

You think not? The Non-Fox Media managed to persuade a majority of voters that the last four years of jobless misery was George W. Bush's fault, having nothing whatsoever to do with Obama.

That was also my point here.

The republicans lost the election so lets give the democrats what they want, let them "own" the economy.

Besides, the democrats have "balked on spending cuts. Balked on entitlement reform. What's left? A value added tax? A carbon tax? What's left after the rich pay their 'fair share'?"

I expect the republicans to fight this and get blamed for our economy just like the author at Reason and Ann Coulter predict. 

Don't expect anything good to come from this economy.

Old White Guys

We've heard a lot about how the republicans need to become more attractive to win the votes of minorities.

They claim that they have more Hispanic congressmen than the democrats do.  They claim that their convention was filled with accomplished minorities.  They claim that the catholic hispanics and baptist blacks have the same social ideas as do the republicans.

And yet minorities vote overwhelmingly for the democrats.

The republicans seem to all be old white guys, despite all of their efforts to contact minorities.  The republicans need to do a better job of appealing the those minorities we hear.  They should take a softer stand on many issues we're told.

And yet I remember in 2004 that stem cell research was an issue.  George Bush was perceived to be against stem cell research that might (it hasn't) save people with terrible illnesses.  His actual policy was to limit the government funding for it.  So of course, the democrats and media claimed that he wanted to ban all stem cell research.  "How could he be so heartless," they wondered.

His actual policy included government funding and yet we were all told, and believed, that he was opposed to stem cell research.

That is what the media did eight years ago.  Republicans now want to moderate on the issues when the democrats and media will get most of the public to believe that whatever the republicans want to do is heartless, awful, and they hate minorities... regardless of the truth.

Future Huffington Post Comments

I haven't debated fellow commenters at the Huffington Post for a while, becasue deer (& deer 2) are more interesting, and will be for a while yet.

One great benefit of our election being over is that the potential articles I can comment on in the future will not all put me in a position of defending someone who favored socialized healthcare and gun control. #Romney stinks

Hooray for that.

Happy thanksgiving, etc.

Hey, Obama Voters...

...I didn't vote for Romney despite my intense dislike of Obama.

You say you use "facts and stats" to back up the policies that you support.  I suggest that we try a simple experiment.

Pick a number.  Pick a number that you think would be a good rate of unemployment after eight years of Obama as president.

In 2016 Obama will have been president for eight years.  What would be a good unemployment number after eight years?

Pick that number, remember it, then in 2016 let's see if your "facts and stats" line up with reality.

Note that a 6.5% unemployment rate was awful under President Bush.  Every year since Obama was elected has had a higher rate of unemployment that that.

I suggest that you could claim an unemployment rate of 5-6% in 2016 as some sort of accomplishment for Obama.  (Even though that would be eight years of an unemployment rate that you would have called horrendous with a republican as president.)

Pick your number and look at where we are in four years, if we are no better off...then stop voting for democrats.

One last point: Don't complain about republican obstructionism.  For the foreseeable future our politicians will be about half and half democrat and republican, deal with it.  In any case were there not obstructing democrats in congress when George Bush was president?

Giving Credit Where Its Due.

Last week I congratulated the democrats on their win. 

I don't want to take credit for a line that isn't mine; so I'd like to say that the interesting part of my post was from a line by H.L. Mencken.  Which I read recently at reason.com.

I apologize for not pointing that out earlier.

Meet WI's New Senator

Last Tuesday Wisconsin elected a new senator.  Many of you outside of Wisconsin may not have heard about Tammy Baldwin before.  So let me introduce you to her greatest accomplishments so far.

Senator-Elect Tammy Baldwin's (D-WI) Top Ten Accomplishments:

1. She's a lesbian
2.  
3.  
4.  
5.  
6.  
7.  
8.  
9.  
10.  

Wait, my mistake, those are Ellen DeGeneres' top ten accomplishments.  I'm sorry about that.  I can't imagine how I could have confused her with Tammy Baldwin.

Let me try again.

Senator-Elect Tammy Baldwin's (D-WI) Top Ten Accomplishments:

1. She's a lesbian
2.  
3.  
4.  
5.  
6.  
7.  
8.  
9.  
10.  

I'm really sorry about that mix-up.  You wouldn't think that I would confuse a comedian and a politician would you?

With great accomplishments like those you can really see how she defeated a very, very popular ex-governor who was only notable for things like having Wisconsin's welfare reform be the model for the welfare reform touted to be one of Bill Clinton's greatest presidential accomplishments.

Yes with a list of accomplishments like those I can really see why people wanted to vote for her.  Did you know that she's in favor of gay marriage and is pro-choice?  I learned those two facts and many others about her during the senatorial campaign.  Its a pity that I cannot remember any of the other facts about her, or her opinions on any other issues.  I wonder why I cannot remember.

I'm sure you will all join me in support of our newest senator.   I'm sure that she will continue to have a legislative record of moderation and agreement on the issues with both parties.

Tax The Rich!

Well, the republicans lost the elections.  Too bad for them.

Now we get what we've always wanted!  Tax the rich! Tax the rich! We get to tax the evil rich!

Tax them into oblivion I say!  They wouldn't have gotten rich without forcing their saintly employees to work like dogs!

So let's tax them until they leave and take their awful jobs with them!

Then we can live here with peace and there will be no income inequality!

Won't it be great?

Republicans Are Racist Losers

It seems that one of the reasons the republicans lost is because the Hispanics voted for democrats.  Apparently both the blacks and Hispanics want more" free" stuff (that's free for them and paid for by those of us with productive jobs).

The [loser] republicans will need to get more of the hispanic vote if they expect to win in the future.

This sounds a lot like racism to me.  I had a debate with my college dorm neighbor, who was black (and probably still is), about different laws for different skin tones.  I say if we want to be treated the same, then we should be treated the same way.  He said, different races need different rules to make up for our cultural problems.

Which of us is racist? Why its me of course! (You see I'm white, therefore I'm racist.)

Never mind that I'd be perfectly happy to vote for a half black/ half Hispanic woman.  (Who do we remember that fits that description?)

 

(Google images is waaayyy better than Ask.com images, fyi.)

And I'd vote for a half black/ half hispanic woman even if she didn't look like Miss Dash, and was a lesbian, just so long as she favored lowered spending and more freedom and liberty.

But it seems that the republicans will need to become more racist if they hope to win.

More Post Election @#$^&^!!!

Free Northerner posted an excellent description of our election.

Even is Obama had won because voters debated over and decided they wanted a European-style social democracy rather than a free republic, I would have held some level of hope for the Republic, because then at least adults (however incorrect they might be) would have been in charge. Then when the failure of social democracy became apparent (as it has in Greece) adults would have been able to pick up the pieces.

My [worse] summary of the election:

Responsible people: "Balance the budget!!!  The budget!! The budget!!! The budget!!  Balance the mother fudging budget!!!"

Voters: "nah. We don't need to be responsible. We're going jump the budget like Evel Knievel!"

An Evel Knievel Debt Solution by Frank J (of imao.us)

America is in a debt crisis because of overspending and a huge deficit, like a car racing toward a cliff.

So what do we do?

The tired conservative solution is to stop the car and turn around. That’s what conservatives always want: to make us go backward. Because what’s in the other direction from the cliff of debt? Limited government.

No, there’s another, bolder way to deal with the cliff ahead: Floor it and try to jump it like Evel Knievel.

That’s right. We don’t stop, and we don’t slow down. Instead, we build up speed by raising spending on stimulus packages and health care and flee limited government so fast we take flight over the cliff and land in unlimited government.

One thing, however, threatens to keep us from reaching the other side of the cliff: a budget. A budget — like what Rep. Paul Ryan is proposing — is sugar in the gas tank of our speeding car.

That’s lunacy. The US government hasn’t had a budget for the last three years, and that’s why we’ve been soaring.

Well, the economy hasn’t been soaring, but that’s the private sector’s problem. The government has grown greatly — all thanks to not having a budget. No longer weighed down by the foolishness of limiting how much money we can spend, we’ve picked up speed and are ready to make that daring jump.

I know it’s a little scary, and some of you recall that your mother warned you not to jump off cliffs just because other kids were doing it. But what if one of the people urging you to go over a cliff is Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman? Then it’s probably worth ignoring your mother and trying.

What’s the alternative? To cut government programs? No one’s in favor of that.

We really have no choice but to race toward that cliff of debt and hope we jump it and land on the other side.

Assuming there is another side.

Quote of the Day, 11/7/2012

If you vote, you give your consent to be governed.

-Bill Powell

Let's Look At The Good News

"At this point it looks like America has chosen a rapid decline over a slower decline."

-Free Northerner 

Since we now seem more likely to be heading towards a national disaster, more of us will see it coming with Obama then we would have with Romney.  We weren't going to wake up one day and discover that it is 1984, those changes come more gradually.  With Obama in the White House, not only will the decline come faster, but more of us will be aware of it.  Maybe lots of us will see, sooner, this decline.

And its not as if we expected Romney to improve our situation.  I, for one, am tired of Obama and wanted to see Romney's attempt at changing our country.  But his attempt would have been too little too late, in any case.

From here (h/t: Free Northerner):

Congratulations

We've re-elected the president. I hope that those of you who voted for him get what you wanted, good and hard.

Huffingtopn Post Comments, 9/7/2012

So it used to be that I would leave about 6-8 comments at the Huffington post and then get 20-30 responses to 3 or 4 of my comments.  Last week I left about 16 comments and went from 9 to 13 fans but received not a single reply.  Until yesterday when I got two, I suspect that the email updating me to my replies was not working.

(In light of our national tragedy, those week old comments are uninteresting.)

Stupid Election

It would seem that we re-elected an incompetent socialist.

I did not vote, and don't feel bad about it.  I did think that we were going to get a new president.  I would have liked to see Romney win for no other reason than that I'm tired of Obama.

But I heard on the radio today that a woman based her vote on women's rights...so...um Obama has daughters so... she voted for him.

How could anyone compete with logic like that?