Congratulations, 52

We think they’re in order. At any rate, we’re going to have to put in a massive order for “We Told You So” drums, because one thing’s for sure: The one we have is not going to survive the severe banging it’s going to receive over the next four years. But hey, “52”, you got your token negro Messiah, so it’s going to be worth it, right?

So how is your “non-divisive, healing” Retard-in-Chief doing? Throwing millions into murdering the unborn, that’s what. Not that it should surprise anybody, at least not the 48% paying attention, who already knew that black racist Mengele had a past history of fighting tirelessly for the right to leave live born babies to die of neglect in linen rooms.

President Obama wisely kills abortion “global gag rule”

A new president and new era mean it is time for a refreshing new approach on the shortsighted gag rule, the provision banning federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortion.

President Obama changed the rule, a swift move early in his administration that makes enormous sense. The new president has an undisputable mandate for change and that includes reasonable policy on women’s reproductive rights.

We note that it’s an editorial, which means that we can give them a pass on their usage of words such as “wisely” and “reasonable”, words that they obviously have not the foggiest idea as to the meaning of.

And we don’t really care where any individual human being stands on the issue of killing the unborn, that’s for them to reconcile with their Maker one day, but we thought that all of this ugly divisiveness and polarization was going to come to an end with the Dawning of the Age of Obamarius? Pardon us for saying so, but if you can think up anything more polarizing than forcing a large percentage of the taxpayers of this country to cough up billions to finance a practice that they find only slightly less repugnant than ripping the heads off of live kittens and having sex with the open throat wounds, then we’d like to hear about it.

Elsewhere, the Obamessiah demonstrates his economic ineptitude and colossal cluefuckedness by declaring, imperiously of course, that henceforth every state shall have the right to define its own boutique fuel and designer emissions and mileage standards again and that, furthermore, all cars, on average, must do 35 miles per gallon by 2020, if not earlier. He’d better start shitting those unicorns out right away.

Brilliant, Obambi, just farkin’ brilliant. That’s exactly what the struggling auto industry needs: Even more regulations making producing cars even more expensive and making them even less affordable to customers who are already refusing to buy them.

Hey, but we can always throw even more money at the unions automakers, can’t we? It’s only taxpayer monies, after all, so who gives a fuck as long as it buys votes?

6 days into The New Era, and already the socialist bastard is fucking up at a rate that would make Carter green with envy.

Watch out, Jimmuh, your place as Worst President Evah! may be in danger already.

Oh, and for the first (but certainly not last time):

WE TOLD YOU SO!

Idiots.

162 comments

  1. 151
    Eyas says:

    A thought on the “Stimulus” plan:

    I’ve heard Rush and Mark Levin both suggest that congratulations are in order for the House Repubs who unanimously voted against Obama’s “Stimulus” bill.

    HOWEVER, I’ve also heard (both from Radio hosts and Republicans) that the bill contains little or no stimulus.
    There were those who jumped on Pelosi’s backing of the provision to fund groups that perform abortions. I’ve heard about $millions for this, and $billions for that, and complaints that Obama’s bill is a Pork bill for all sorts of liberal causes. These complaints all seem to center around the idea that the bill WILL not stimulate the economy.

    I think it’s more important that I hear NO ONE talking about how the bill CANNOT stimulate the economy.

    The Government (Federal or State) CAN NOT under any circumstances, nor in any way, stimulate the economy.

    Government does not produce anything. Government has no money. Government cannot create economic value. Government is ALWAYS a drain on the economy. Sometimes this is necessary for public policy reasons; but, NO GOVERNMENT ACTION CAN EVER STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.

    You could argue that tax cuts are a stimulus; but this makes a mockery of the english language. It is just like the spending “cuts” that leftists are always lamenting, but which are not “CUTS” — they are simply a LESSER INCREASE in spending than in previous years. Tax cuts are not “stimulus”. Tax cuts are merely a decrease in the DRAIN upon the economy necessarily imposed by the operation of Government.

    Republicans (and talk show hosts) can bitch about how Obama’s bill doesn’t do enough to “stimulate the economy; but until I hear ALL Republicans unanimously declare that there should be NO BILL AT ALL — then as far as I’m concerned they can all go shit in their hats.

  2. 152

    Dump income taxes, capital gains, et al, replace it with a 15% sales tax on anything other than foodstuffs, and voila’! The thought of 10-12% sounds more acceptable, but the available surplus at 15% would clear the deficits extant.

  3. 153
    Interpretive Clog Dancer says:

    Thanks guys. I think….
    If it ever got to the point where I thought I really wasn’t wanted, I’d leave on my own, but I’ve always figured that people appreciated having, as you say, a “chew toy” around.

  4. 154
    Eyas says:

    LC cmblake6, Imperial Black Ops Technician sez:

    Dump income taxes, capital gains, et al, replace it with a 15% sales tax on anything other than foodstuffs, and voila’! The thought of 10-12% sounds more acceptable, but the available surplus at 15% would clear the deficits extant.

    I’m not against the “fair” tax per se; I just don’t understand it. I’ve asked a few “fair” tax advocates to explain it to me, and I have been told each time that “I just don’t get it” (which is exactly what I was saying) or that I need to do more research on it.

    Well, I’ve done some research and I’m still no wiser. I understand what the proposal entails. What I don’t understand is how the “fair” tax is not a ‘regressive’ tax. That is, it seems to me that it imposes a greater tax burden (percentage-wise) on the poor than it does the rich.

    Personally, I’m philosophically opposed to our “progressive” income tax — collecting a greater percentage of income from the wealthy than from the poor. But I don’t think the opposite is the right way to promote “fairness”. Which is why I’d prefer a flat tax (say 10%).

    Cmblake,
    If you, or anyone else, can explain why the “fair” tax is not regressive — it would ease my mind, and maybe I could get on board with it.

  5. 155
    Eyas says:

    Is anyone else seeing all of the posts aligned center? But only after post #29 on this page? Or is it just me?

  6. 156

    Interpretive Clog Dancer sez:

    Thanks guys. I think….
    If it ever got to the point where I thought I really wasn’t wanted, I’d leave on my own, but I’ve always figured that people appreciated having, as you say, a “chew toy” around.

    Well, I vote “aye” as well for all of the reasons already mentioned and I am the last word on that matter. You stay as long as you wish, ICD. I may never agree with a word you say, although I find that unlikely, and we may get into some spirited debates at times, but when I say that this is a place for people to speak their minds, I don’t imply “if they happen to have a mind like mine.” The same rules apply to you around here that apply to everybody else, which is to say “not very many rules at all.”

    If you want to say something, say it. If you get flamed, flame back if you so desire. Or not. It’s up to you. If you want to initiate a flame, go right ahead, just don’t come crying to me when you get incinerated right back. You get to pick the level of discourse that you want at any given moment and you get to live with the consequences, good or bad. There is no “code of conduct” except for a very few extreme exceptions, but nothing in what you’ve said in the past indicates to me that you’ll ever even get close to that level. And even if you do, you’ll have ample warning first. It’s only slightly less difficult to get banned around here than it is to get Congress to NOT vote themselves a pay raise for the job they don’t do.

    And even in those extremely rare cases where somebody crossed the line and refused to heed the numerous warnings headed their way, cases that can be counted on one hand missing fingers, it’s more of a “time out” than anything else.

    Anyway, bottom line: This isn’t The Daily Kotz or The Dhimmicrat Underground where you get tombstoned for questioning the fragrance of the party line bullshit. You can question anything you bloody well like as long as you accept that you’re going to get as you give. At the end of the day, I’d still have a beer with you. If you were paying, of course. OK, kidding there. I’d bloody well drink your scrawny colonial arse under the table any day of the week and twice on Sundays and I’d insist on paying for at least part of the pleasure 😉

    Have fun. That’s what we’re having.

  7. 157
    Dragineez says:

    LC Cheapshot911, Dept. of Redneck Tech sez:

    But hey, scars are better than tattoos. They come with a story and a lessson.

    Damn, can I borrow that line?

  8. 158
    LC Ranger 6, Imperial Wielder of The Rove says:

    Well, I’ve done some research and I’m still no wiser. I understand what the proposal entails. What I don’t understand is how the “fair” tax is not a ‘regressive’ tax.

    It changes the tax base from a “production tax” to a “consumptive tax”.

    demonrats want to tax production. Stupid. Deflates economic growth and job creation because the job creators have less to spend on their business and new jobs.

    Who consumes more? The wealthy or the poor?

    If there are more jobs (because business owners have more of their own money), more wealth and more consumption it stands to reason (proved by history) that the government would earn more in taxes.

    ’nuff said.

  9. 159
    LC Ranger 6, Imperial Wielder of The Rove says:

    Is anyone else seeing all of the posts aligned center? But only after post #29 on this page? Or is it just me?

    Eyas,

    It’s the Garfield acid.

    Don’t

    Take

    Anymore.

    :em95:

  10. 160

    Figure the Fair Tax on this basis. It taxes new, not used, products. SO, a rich man buys a new 100K car, he pays the taxes on it. A poor man buys a used 1K car and pays no taxes. Pretty much the same for everything, except there are some things that can’t be bought used. For that, all taxes paid up to poverty level (say, 10K) gets refunded by way of a prebate. That’s awful basic, but if you want to borrow my Fair Tax book, drop me an email at lpcard at hotmail dot com.

  11. 161
    Tyrmadris says:

    Wow, you got rather upset and my comments, Dragineez ! Neat!

    PS: I was agreeing with you on the perpetual energy machine (well, you and most others call it ‘perpetual motion’, but I digress). Oh, and in case you didn’t remember, a ‘generator’ turns one form of energy into another. Such as motion into electricity, or electricity into sound. Sorry, but I can’t resist stating this blindingly obvious fact after you took pains to remind me of what I already knew. One bad turn and all that.

    the engine/generator combo means the engine always runs at an engineered, predetermined and extremely efficient rpm to run said generator.

    Hmm… confusing use of nouns. The engine that powers the generator or the engine that provides motive force for the car? I’m assuming what you’re trying to say is that the gasoline-powered engine runs at a steady rate and thus provides a steady current to the electricity-powered engine that runs the car (with any ‘spare’ energy over the needed amount being used to recharge the batteries). But, please, correct me if I’m wrong, because this is quite a tangle.

    “So! You’re running off the batteries! You can run out of juice!” No, not really. The system is designed to kick on the generator before the batteries deplete.

    Actually, you can. You’ve just traded one energy resevoir for another, though that technique delays it considerably. Also, if it’s set to a specific level to kick in every time, you’re going to have a hell of a problem with ‘battery memory’. Unless my old self isn’t up with the times and they’ve developed batteries that don’t have this problem anymore (entirely possible). Of course, a little randomizing element in there somewhere (as part of the electronic controls of the car) could make this less of an issue.

    “If they could make one that could run on either alone while still having options for both, it’d be an awesome idea. Unfortunately, that’s a lot more difficult than one or the other.

    Yeah, my fault. The bolded part is the portion I forgot to put in there. Without it, it’s rather contradictory. What you’ve described is actually pretty close to this, or as close as possible to get while minimizing the number of systems that can break down. Pretty nice.

    As far as the increased demand on the electrical grid to recharge such vehicles if they came into widespread use, I haven’t seen any figures on that. But I suspect the impact would be fairly inconsequential.

    Are you serious? I mean, seriously serious? Millions of cars drawing that power? Inconsequential? I seriously, seriously doubt it. But there’s a solution to that as well, which we both already listed, so I won’t go into it here.

    Besides, if it were necessary we might finally have the justification needed to implement a large increase in our nuclear power generating capacity

    Already covered. What’s TVA stand for? I’ve already stated I’d love for that to be an option. Nuclear and Hydro are great sources of energy for such an endeavor, and we’ve had an example of how to run them decently well for over half a century.

    As we should have been doing since the ’60s.

    Completely agree.

  12. 162

    Eyas @:
    Have you been to fairtax.org? That’s the official website. Neal Boortz is a huge advocate of the Fair Tax. I like it, too.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.