Republicans have become a toxin. Explain to me how you can be protesting "Obama's" (future?) Taxes on Tax Day - TAXES THAT HAVE:
a) Not been raised.
b) Are all based on George Bush's tax plan - the man you fuckers elected.
Are you just plain stupid? Maybe you are just ignorant?
Ah. Perhaps both.
Your entire existence oozes stupidity. Generally I save my rants for politicians, since they are really the ones ruining the country, but this has to be some new level of stupid. Where were your protests when your own dumbass president was creating these taxes? Where were your protests when he killed other Americans in Iraq?
Go. The Fuck. Away. I'm serious. All 250,000+ of you, and anyone that wishes they had protested. This is seriously the dumbest thing you could ever protest, and the types of "signs" and shouts that you idiots were displaying only serves to exacerbate your stupidity. You're all a tremendous joke. The reason we are elitist is because we may, in fact, be better than you.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Tea Party Protests Need More Antioxidants
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
And yes, I recognize this was not a product of the GOP. But I would also bet you that these guys didn't vote for Obama, and certainly didn't vote for Kerry. They are Republican voters that may not label themselves Republican, but that's like Ted Kennedy calling himself an Independent - just because you say it doesn't make it true.
The last line of your comment is excellent =).
Oh my...I knew liberals were unthinking and hysterical, but Librocrat takes the proverbial cake here. Do you even understand what the tea parties were about? Or did you simply make teabagging jokes like most of the main-stream media? Did you ever consider that possibly we Americans don't want to put our children into debt to pay for ridiculous program. Maybe you don't understand the gravity of $3 trillion. I assume you know that money does not grow on trees. So where will Mr Obama find the money to fund these expenditures into the future. Just because you print more dollar bills, doesn't "make" money...it just devalues what's already out there. Your use of the fine English languge indicates your ability to hold an intelligent conversation. So we'll just leave it at that.
^^^^Oh boy, another right-wing whackjob is trolling your board Librocrat. Watch out for them.
Brilliant job. You've managed to not represent anything in my post while claiming I said anything of or related to the garbage you decided to rant against.
"Or did you simply make teabagging jokes like most of the main-stream media?"
I'm confused, what are you referencing here - the part where I made no reference to teabagging or the part where I made no reference to teabagging? Oh, that's right, I made no reference to teabagging.
"Did you ever consider that possibly we Americans don't want to put our children into debt to pay for ridiculous program."
NO WAY! zOMG I TOTALLY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE SUPER DUPER AWESOME TO GO TRILLIONS IN DEBT! Another brilliant analysis. Here's a thought: Which program? Do you even know which "program?" Or perhaps you meant "programs," in which case - do you even know which programs?
"I knew liberals were unthinking and hysterical, but Librocrat takes the proverbial cake here."
Nice, you used the word "Proverbial."
"Your use of the fine English languge indicates your ability to hold an intelligent conversation. So we'll just leave it at that."
Of the two of us, only one of us knows how to make paragraph breaks, use transitions, use commas instead of periods, and spell "language" correctly when trying to illustrate a point about an individual's knowledge of the English language.
Nothing you said in your entire post derives from your own individual thought. "Money doesn't grow on trees!" No way!!! "Do you understand the gravity of 3 million?" IT'S NOT 9.8 m/s^2???
On my blog, I can write whatever I want. But if you want to actually respond to something I've written and have me actually consider it, try to use thoughts that you actually came up with yourself - not irrelevant right wing talking points that don't actually dispute anything I've written.
Yes, it is your blog. You can write what you want. Since you've placed it in a public forum I thought I would peruse it. It is hard to have a valid viewpoint without looking at both sides of an argument.
You've said...
"Republicans have become a toxin. Explain to me how you can be protesting "Obama's" (future?)
Taxes on Tax Day - TAXES THAT HAVE:
a) Not been raised.
b) Are all based on George Bush's tax plan - the man you fuckers elected."
How have my taxes not been raised? These bailouts don't use Monopoly money. It has to come from somewhere! The same goes for GM, Chrysler, Freddie Mac...who is going to pay for this? That's what is being protested. President Bush is no saint either. He started with this bailout crap. But enough is enough!
I thought I asked very applicable questions that DIRECTLY relate to your original post. You asked for an explanation of why people were protesting...I responded. You seem to take issue with the peaceful demonstrations that occurred. I guess free speech only applies to the internet, blogs, and rants.
You also said...
"Here's a thought: Which program? Do you even know which "program?" Or perhaps you meant "programs," in which case - do you even know which programs? "
Since you asked...
$634 billion toward the introduction of universal health care, $150 billion for funding "green" energy sources
$83 million for educating migrant workers; $169 million for "air quality grants" or $900 million dollars on Amtrak.
The point is we're spending too much. Bush, Obama...I don't care who is doing it but it has to stop. As we near a national debt of $11 trillion, you've got to ask how will we pay for this? The people who took sub-prime mortages should have asked that same question for the same exact reasons. Look where they (and we) are at now.
I love that you are so open on your blog with such original thought of your own. Right wing talking points? Or the truth?
I disagree with the premise of your protests, but this is a far more eloquent response that is related to what I have written. As a result, I'm not going to bother flaming it, but rather keep it as a comment for others to consider.
The only part I will respond to is this one:
"How have my taxes not been raised? These bailouts don't use Monopoly money. It has to come from somewhere! The same goes for GM, Chrysler, Freddie Mac...who is going to pay for this? That's what is being protested. President Bush is no saint either. He started with this bailout crap. But enough is enough!"
Taxes have not been raised. Not yet. Whether or not they need to be is irrelevant at this point. As a Democrat, I don't particularly care if they are raised, but I know this upsets people. Still, they have not been raised, so what is being protested is the idea of future taxes.
What is important, here, is that the downfall of the economy was not something that "no one saw coming." Most people on the left saw it coming, because the very idea that giving tax breaks to the rich was going to stimulate the economy was preposterous. In addition, the idea that a completely free market doesn't breed greed and abuse was equally as ridiculous. But those at the protests - those are the exact same people that voted for the things that ruined the economy. Whether you consider yourself the exception or not, the truth is that if Democratic principles had been implemented, these bubbles would very likely not have popped, since almost all of them are the result of the Bush Administration's policies.
I'm not asking you to agree with that, because I am positive you don't. This is where we are going to disagree and why I have no desire to try to argue against every point in your post (there is nothing wrong with disagreement, in general).
But my point is that the blaming of Obama - in fact, the "flaming' of Obama like you see in the above picture, is not the exception but the rule. There is a reason that Sean Hannity supported the tea party protests, and it is because the majority of the protesters - while possibly there for a cause that you think is worth supporting - are completely ignorant of the events that actually caused these bailouts. A TREMENDOUS number of them are right wing Fox News watchers that think that Obama caused the current economic crisis, and that he has ALREADY raised taxes on them, as well as caused most of the bailouts.
The point of the protests, while we are in disagreement, is at the very least interesting. It is the idea that these bailouts are going to cause a massive debt towards our children (as a side, I'm not actually THAT old that it does not affect me as well). Okay. But the people that attended them are not protesting that. They are protesting Obama, and a surprising minority even realized that these protests had anything to do with Libertarian philosophies.
Even if you disagree, I'm sure you see my point. Sean Hannity, Fox News, the dude in the photo in the post - these are NOT libertarians. These are right wing Republicans who truly believe that Obama has already raised taxes and is somehow responsible for the current crisis. And even if the idea behind the protests started as a good cause, I'm not even remotely convinced that the majority of those in attendance understood what that cause was.
My favorite joke:
There's three types of people in this world...those who can do mental math and those who cannot.
Please refer to this link: http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/obama-the-efficient-goes-to-washington.html
Pretty much says everything I could possibly say about the topic.
Yep. I'm 50% Polynesian, 50% Nigerian and 50% Icelandic. I'm 150% a person.
I disagree with libertarianism's basic premise, but okay. I also thoroughly disagree that those attending the rallies understand libertarianism as a whole, though, which is my biggest problem with the rallies.
But let's address the elephant in the room ... "WHO IS GOING TO PAY?!!!!"
No one is answering this simple question...not you not Obama and not the House or Senate.
Taxes haven't been raised...not yet. But just like a credit card bill...it has to get paid off eventually.
I pay mine off every month ... why shouldn't our government?
But this completely ignores every other aspect of the economy. Who cares who is going to pay for something 30 years in the future if the entire economy collapses now?
Where were these arguments when Bush ruined the economy before, REQUIRING that this money is spent now?
I'm not saying debt doesn't matter - it does. But it is a necessary debt that was caused by the wild, uncontrollable spending with ZERO regulations on businesses that ruined the economy in the first place.
"Who is going to pay for this?" is an argument that is like 5 years too late. If you don't spend money, the economy collapses, and it is irrelevant. If you do spend money, the country goes into greater debt, but we have a chance of making that money back in the future.
You want to protest? Hold a giant sign that says "I'm truly sorry I voted for Bush, twice - it is my fault we are in this mess, but I would prefer that you not spend money if possible." Then offer an alternative plan other than "The economy will fix itself" without the financial help, because that's simply not true, and the entire reason we're in this mess in the first place.
"Who is going to pay for this."
I am. Big deal. It's either:
a) We pay for this.
b) We don't, the economy collapses, and I make no money anyway.
Once again - I really don't give a shit if they raise my taxes to help fix the country. So... I don't know who you're preaching to.
In fact, I would like to elaborate further on why "Who will pay for this" is a bad argument:
There are 100 million taxpayers in America. If every taxpayer (regardless of income level) pays $1,000 more every year (hardly financially crippling to most Americans - approximately $19.23 a week), the Government will see an increase of:
100,000,000 x 1,000 = 1 trillion dollars - cutting the deficit by a substantial margin.
But wait, it isn't that simple. The number is actually going to be lower than that, scaled based on income. Obviously $1,000 can be more crippling to lower income taxpayers than higher income taxpayers. So if we adjust that number to assume a 1% tax increase, that is only 300.00 for those making $30,000 a year ($5.76 a week). $1,000 for those that make $100,000 a year. And 10,000 for those making 1 million.
That 1% increases will help provide:
1) Universal Health Care
2) A vastly improved economy
3) Greater job security
4) Social security
5) Safer streets
To put that in perspective, I pay $2,500 a year for healthcare alone. Most Americans pay upwards of $4,000. In addition an improved economy will bring in more money as well as cost the government less over time, making future budgets larger.
No one likes tax increases. But "who is going to pay for this?!" assumes that somehow any tax increase will be financially crippling, and it won't be. If your children have to pay an extra $1,000 more a year in taxes, just be thankful they have a job and rest assured they'll be fine.
"There are 100 million taxpayers in America. If every taxpayer (regardless of income level) pays $1,000 more every year (hardly financially crippling to most Americans "
But that's precisely the problem. 100 million are NOT going to pay an additonal $1000. Your majestical leader wants to Robin Hood this thing...steal it all from the "rich" and dole it out to others. Even shifting the cost around to a "pay as you are able" system still results in the same negative effects on the economy. I work for Uncle Sam...to put it bluntly, your tax dollars are not spent efficiently. No business could survive with the way the government runs. Some of this is necessary, but by and large the money waste is staggering. Sorry, but I will not disclose in what capacity I work in other than that.
We don't need the government to decide what's best to do with my hard earned money and what's best for me. They are inept. It isn't their money so they have no problem freely throwing it around.
We "COULD" pay this off this way...but WHY should we? This is unnecessary. This is waste. This stifles the economy.
It is widely researched, but little published in the gems that we call textbooks that FDR's new deal did not only not bring us out of the depression, but extended it an additonal 6-7 years.
"1) Universal Health Care
2) A vastly improved economy
3) Greater job security
4) Social security
5) Safer streets"
What leads you to believe that Obama and company can achieve even the slightest advances of those above?
Is our health care that broke? How many people have died of swine flu here? Where do people flock to when they need real medical care?
Vastly improved economy? Show me 1 instance of governement spending that "stimulated" the economy or "vastly improved" it. Just 1. Please.
Greater job security? Only if you work for the government. Its easy to do the math. Corporation gets increased tax load--> Less money to pay to employees --> Jobs get cut. Pretty secure, huh?
Social security? Contrary to popular belief, you and I are not paying into an insurance fund. It is unsustainable. The "safety net" theory has been bastardized, and under the current conception is completely unsustainable.
Safer streets? Okaaaay...where are you getting this from? More terrorists IN the continental U.S.? If its an enforcement issue, I already see TOO MANY police on the roads, ambushing motorists for 5 mph over the limit. Maybe harsher penalties for these scumbags who commit the real crimes would be better. Just a thought.
"uncontrollable spending with ZERO regulations on businesses that ruined the economy in the first place."
Or was it pressure put on BY
government and community organizers to FORCE banks into giving loans to those they traditionally would never have because of their risk. Let's do a little more research than just blindly blame Bush. How 'bout throwing some of it at Clinton and his policies towards the economy as well.
"I really don't give a shit if they raise my taxes to help fix the country"
The willingness to throw your money away coupled with your blind faith that the government even COULD fix it is disturbing. Your view is utopian. Its too perfect. But the problem is that it is fantasy.
"If your children have to pay an extra $1,000 more a year in taxes, just be thankful they have a job and rest assured they'll be fine." But that's just it...will they have a job? Raising taxes = jobs lost. Simple. Let's just hope I install enough of an entrepreneurial spirit in them so they can earn a living instead of sucking off the government's teet, expecting SOMEONE ELSE TO PROVIDE FOR THEM. Good thing, because the liberal whackos out there will still need someone to mooch off.
"What leads you to believe that Obama and company can achieve even the slightest advances of those above?"
Not once did I saw Obama was doing any of these things. I was putting forth a hypothetical that would easily solve the problem that no one is going to implement. The majority of your post is arguing about why Barack Obama has not been able do to something I never said he did. No shit there is no social security. Hence the reason I advocate a 1% tax increase on everyone. I never said Barack Obama advocated anything of the sort.
In addition, almost every point you argued, such as how taking money away from the rich will take away jobs, is exactly what Bush just did for the past 8 years. And if failed. Just because you have somehow convinced yourself that worked doesn't mean it actually did.
"Or was it pressure put on BY
government and community organizers to FORCE banks into giving loans to those they traditionally would never have because of their risk"
HA! No.
"Is our health care that broke? How many people have died of swine flu here? Where do people flock to when they need real medical care?"
WHAT?! What the hell does Swine Flu have to do with anything? Swine flu is a joke, and its containment had absolutely nothing to do with the health care system. And even Republicans admit to a health care problem - John McCain even gave his own examples of how he would solve it. It's too expensive, it doesn't cover people when they need it, and it single handedly brings down businesses because of its cost. I can't even imagine how you could think it is working. Having good doctors and education is NOT the "health care system."
One note - I agree with you that the government works like crap. Utopian philosophy? HA! I think most people should be fired. But if you think businesses are run any better you are out of your mind.
Finally:
BAM!. That is the tax calculator provided by the Heritage Foundation, a Republican research group. An individual making 1,000,000 gets approximately 39,000 back in taxes. Do you think a person making a million a year gives a crap about 39.000? And yet that's what Bush's tax cuts gave him. Hooray! He can now go out and buy... nothing that great!
The tax cuts were pointless to begin with, CLEARLY didn't stimulate the economy, and were based on the flawed idea that somehow these companies would use that money to hire more employees, which they didn't. I really have no problem re-instituting those taxes.
To end this discussion:
I'm not asking you to agree with me. You're a right wing Republican and I'm a left wing Democrat - if we agreed, we wouldn't have those labels. But your PROTESTS - those were superfluous and useless. You protested the actions of a President that has only been in power for a few months - actions he is being forced to do to fix the problems caused by the President YOU elected. And then, you are protesting him for doing a few of the things that the president YOU elected did, WITHOUT you protesting.
Get your anger right. You had 8 years to care about the excessive spending, and you didn't. Now, every economist that isn't extremely right wing says the only way to fix the problems is, unfortunately, to continue spending. You don't have to agree with it, and you're not expected to, but stop blaming Obama for the mistakes of the president that you elected, since the majority of his spending proposals are designed to try to help fix those mistakes.
First, I'm not blaming Obama for anything. I WILL blame him if all these "programs" and government spending ideas come to fruition. The point is I don't WANT him pursuing these fruitless efforts.
"BAM!. That is the tax calculator provided by the Heritage Foundation, a Republican research group. An individual making 1,000,000 gets approximately 39,000 back in taxes. Do you think a person making a million a year gives a crap about 39.000? And yet that's what Bush's tax cuts gave him. Hooray! He can now go out and buy... nothing that great!"
No, the millionaire probably doesn't directly care about $39,000. But the person he employed for that amount probably cares. I'd bet he/she would be happy to continue working for that amount. But, raise taxes and someone has to get cut. I don't care if somoene makes $10, $10,000, $100,000 or $1,000,000 a year. It is THEIR money. Not yours, not mine, not the governments. This bloated inefficient government cannot keep growing like this and assume we're going to keep supporting it blindly. Sooner or later, Atlas is going to shrug.
Excellent - and that is my point about how we aren't expected to agree, and I am okay with that.
My argument was that these protests - these organized, angry protests - while they may have started as a Libertarian plea for smaller government, were most certainly not that. It is not important whether you and/or the people you know were simply protesting continued spending. What is important is that individuals like the sign holder in the above picture are not the exception but the rule. They were part of a substantial number of Republicans that are pissed that their candidate lost and blame Obama for all of the spending that hadn't even occurred yet, along with "Tax raises" that also hadn't been implemented.
It is not important whether or not you feel you were justified in your protests. It is important what the rage is pointed at as a whole. No one at those protests showed even an ounce of humility in recognizing that they were the ones that elected the man that started this crap in the first place. Instead, 100% of the blame was place on Obama, for policies that have not been created and taxes that had not yet been raised, and that is ridiculous. Your right to be upset about spending is entirely yours, and something that you are 100% allowed based on your ideological leanings. But if you want to protest a failing economy and the spending that is being done to solve it, the vast majority of you that voted for the President that caused all these problems need to admit that it was a mistake and acknowledge that the policies failed before I am going to be able respect an angry protest against a president that hadn't yet done any of the things the protests claimed he has already done.
Okay? That's all I really have to say about this. I have no problem with the disagreement with the President's plan. I have a problem with the direction of the rage at these protests, and the fact that there wasn't even an ounce of humility by the people that elected the man that caused the vast majority of these problems.
I only have one point I want to argue with your previous post:
"No, the millionaire probably doesn't directly care about $39,000. But the person he employed for that amount probably cares. I'd bet he/she would be happy to continue working for that amount."
No. Because these tax breaks occurred and it made absolutely no difference with job creation whatsoever, making this argument moot. If no one was hired because of the tax break, no one can be fired because the tax break is taken away, and all available evidence suggests these tax breaks did nothing other than make the disparity between the wealthy and the middle class greater.
master cleanse secrets -
maternityacupressure -
maternity acupressure -
maximum paid surveys -
meet your sweet -
mobile tv pro -
musclegainingsecrets -
muscle gaining secrets -
my dish biz -
one minute cure -
paid surveys online -
panic away -
pc tv 4 me -
pdf creator -
perfect optimizer -
pick the gender of your baby -
plr wholesaler -
private niche empire -
project quick cash -
public records pro -
pull your ex back -
quick article pro -
quit smoking today -
reality creation secrets -
reg clean -
regi cleanse -
registry easy -
registry fix -
registry winner -
reg sweep -
reg tool -
reverse mobile -
reverse phone detective -
richard mackenzie direct -
Ask anyone who was affected by last year's Panda update or the more recent Penguin update from Google, and you'll
quickly see that it's foolish to put all the income from your Internet marketing blog in one proverbial basket. If you do this, you will soon lose a lot of viewers because there is no diversity in your blogs. Promote and distribute your posts on to other social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Linked - In.
my blog post: hostgator coupon code
Nikki Montgomery is a fitness and beauty expert with about 7 years
experience in cellulite treatments. The folding action Endermologie creates
causes the connective issues to stretch.
You do not have to perform these exercises every day, all you need is to
do them three times (3x) a week for about thirty minutes each session.
Also visit my webpage Cellulite treatment
Occasionally laser surgery will be used in order to deal with the problem.
For extra guidelines, facts and goods about how to get rid of acne please see this writer Bio below:.
Others think tanning and sunning themselves will dry up their skin and pimples to eliminate their acne.
Also visit my web site :: how to get rid of warts all over my hands
Post a Comment