Thursday, October 16, 2008

Stolen From Sister Toldjah's Blog

This thread at Sister Toldjah's reminds me of a discussion I once had somewhere regarding the fact that some people just shouldn't vote. That's not to say that I think the average American should in any way be prevented. Of course not. That would be wrong. But if there was some way to convince idiots to stay home and stop pretending like they know what they're talking about, that would be great. It would mean absolutely no Democratic votes of course, but if that's what has to happen, then so be it. In other words, if Dems really want to display their patriotism, they should stay home on election day. That one selfless act on each of their parts would be regarded by me (at least) as a true indication of patriotism unlike anything they could ever show by voting for Obama.

Of course there are socialists out there. They know that Obama's a socialist and that his policies reflect a socialist bent, so yeah, they'd be voting from an educated perspective. And there are America haters out there who think everything is our fault and as Barry has friendships with some people with some celebrity who are hateful of our country, then yes, they too are educated enough to know that an Obama presidency could be sympathetic to their pathetic sensibilities. And of course, those who insist on sex without consequence know which candidate will protect their ability to kill their kids.

But as the link to Sister Toldjah's blog clearly shows, as well as the links from that post of hers, the depth and breath of stupidity amongst Obama supporters is the stuff of legend. In my own corner of the world, I have been astounded by reasons people have given me for supporting the Obamanable One. A co-worker thinks voting for a good speaker is a good thing because you'll know what he's talking about. I suggested that perhaps he would have then supported one of the greatest speakers of the 20th century, Adolph Hitler. Another aquaintance was swayed by Obama's position on ethanol, due to the fact that we grow lots of corn here in the People's Republic of Illinois. I was stupified. Ethanol. That's his issue. Jeez. And of course, the usual "We need a change" without a clear explanation of just what the hell that means or how it would look. Just shoot me.

I could go on. Believe me, I could. But the question might be, what of you rightwingers? Surely there are rightwing counterparts to those you mock? And I'd say, get your own blog, ya loser! But seriously, if you put two chimps in a booth and they voted, the one who punched Johnny Mac's ticket is, by virtue of his choice, the smarter chimp. And it's not because the chimp is well versed on economics or foreign policy, but rather, considering their penchant for throwing pooh, they see Obama for what he is.

But truly, more stupid than those highlighted in Sis' post are the educated and political of the Democrat community. They see Obama for what he is but their hatred for the right leads them to deny it or ignore it or to pretend it isn't true. And what is Obama? For all his sorry policy positions, his alliances, his world view, he's simply wrong for this country. Don't be stupid.

40 comments:

Vinny said...

It is true that there are many Obama supporters who are completely uninformed when it comes to the issues facing the country and the world. At least we did not nominate one of them for Vice-President.

Marshall Art said...

No one nominated an Obama supporter on the Republican side, so I'm not sure what you mean. But you did worse. You nominated Joe Biden.

You know, the experience thing has been terribly misstated. Not one of the four has presidential experience, although both McCain and Palin have executive experience. The victor will have advisors and staff people to keep them abreast of all they need to know. What's more important is character, judgement, smarts, courage and a few more things that are in greater supply on the Republican side of the equation.

Ron said...

Well Marshall it's certainly easy to find semi bright or dumb people in this country but I'm called unamerican when I say it. It means I hate my country.

Here's some more dumb people


For being someone I consider bright you do miss the obvious sometimes.
Like the fact that there are two sides to every story. Being a conservative is fine but deciding I'm dumber than a monkey because I'm voting for Obama is a bit over the common sense line isn't it? Hyperbole much?

Ron said...

Oh I do have my own blog but I like to muddy up yours once in a while!

Vinny said...

McCain surrounds himself with the lobbyists that he blames for the culture of greed and corruption in Washington and he chooses a pathological liar for his running mate. That sure shows character and judgment.

Marshall Art said...

"Being a conservative is fine but deciding I'm dumber than a monkey because I'm voting for Obama is a bit over the common sense line isn't it?"

No. It's a bit harsh, I concede. But I find nothing wise or intelligent in voting for Obama. In fact, when one considers the range of Dem leaders and their policy positions, supporting any of them is far less than bright. We've got a few boobs on our side as well, but it seems stupidity is a requirement to lead the Dems. At that they are very successful.

Feodor said...

There are many times I want to agree with the sentiment that some people are too stupid to vote:

"He's not... he's not... he's... he's an Arab!"

"He's a Muslim."

"He pals around with terrorists." (In this case, the speaker should be disqualified from running for VP)

"They may be perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history and may be destroying the fabric of democracy." (This would disqualify the speaker from running for P)

"He's a Marxist." "Socialism is knocking on the door."

God, get into the twentieth century at least (unless you are Amish - which is fine.)

But... the denial of the right to vote is the first characteristic fantasy of totalitarianism, and the first joke of those who anticipate losing their side of -- a very wishful -- argument.

Feodor said...

By the way, Marshall Art, I answered your question regarding thoughtless Christianity on ELAshley's site.

Marshall Art said...

Feodor,

"He pals around with terrorists."

She was being kind. It was more than a "pals" situation, wasn't it? They were allied in their endeavors. And yes, without question, Ayers and Dohrn ARE terrorists. This is undeniable, and when given the opportunity to say otherwise, they don't.

"They may be perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history and may be destroying the fabric of democracy."

Isn't he talking about ACORN here? If not, whom? If so, you might get him on hyperbole, but that fraud is being committed by ACORN people is also undeniable.

"He's a Marxist." "Socialism is knocking on the door."

These are based on his own words and his policy ideas. Also undeniable. The time of day or the century has nothing to do with it.

There was no suggestion of denying anyone the right to vote as evidenced by the following from the second sentence of the post: "That's not to say that I think the average American should in any way be prevented. Of course not. That would be wrong." Nor did Sister Toldjah's post suggest that. The point was that some shouldn't and that is absolutely true. Considering the harm Obama's proposals will cause, it's absolutely true for his supporters. But they will, confirming my statement regarding their intelligence. It's sad, really, since many people I know think he's a good choice. It's hard to tell them how stupid that is. They don't like it. Truth can be harsh.

Feodor said...

"He pals around with terrorists":

Every time Mr. Obama sat at a table with the reformed Mr. Ayers, Republicans were there, too. Conservative ones. Annenberg, no less. At a table with a reformed bomber and Republican moneybags working to fund the best thinking about children's education.

No meeting in a small, dark room with four other Senators, shuffling in the door with one's head down to talk to a head of Savings and Loan about protecting personal assets and assess while loosing taxpayer's hard earned retirement savings.

"They may be perpetrating one the greatest frauds in voter history":

Senator McCain to Acorn at 2006 conference:
"you are what makes America special."



As for Mr. Obama's Marxism: He is not opposed to the death penalty. He is for strict accountability for teachers and that their jobs should be at the mercy of performance evaluations (you will not hear that from any other democrat). He counts as his advisors Warren Buffet, Paul Volcker, and other Republicans.

 As for any knee jerk reaction to charges of "redistributing the wealth," please explain to me how taxes are not a socially sanctioned, morally effective way to share the wealth for the good of the many? Socialism is not taxes. It is nationalizing almost all institutions that deliver services to the whole: insurance, electricity, gas, retirement savings, etc.

True, measures have been taken to nationalize our banks to a minor degree and that is a kind of modern socialist move, but this a plan proposed by a Republican administration, approved by both parties in a strategy that's intended to correct American capitalism not destroy it. As if Joe Biden can spend thirty in the US Senate and countenance marxism.

And Obama or McCain will do their best to continue to do what is needed to make the correction stick.

Your "undeniables," Marshal Art, are figments produced by your denials.

Do you really think Obama will get in there and bring back the sixties underground movement? Really? Seriously? Say you're that crazy to believe that Obama and Biden want to destroy the Democratic party forever and split the country for four years generating impeachment efforts and riots.

Are you really that illogical and out of touch? And if not, then how in God's name do continue to play at thinking insanely and go out into the world? Is it like reading a fantasy novel for you or watching a "world is ending, virus is eating everyone's face" movie?

It is the complete loss of reason while still being sane and able to use complex language to relieve oneself of anger and anxiety that has me entranced. And, to be honest, offended by the destructiveness of such laziness and thoughtlessness.

Vinny said...

But they will, confirming my statement regarding their intelligence. It's sad, really, since many people I know think he's a good choice. It's hard to tell them how stupid that is. They don't like it. Truth can be harsh.

Maybe its hard because, unlike you, they have sources of information other than right wing blogs and right wing talk radio. Maybe, unlike Sarah Palin, they read books and newspapers. It can be hard to tell people who are better informed that you that they are stupid.

Vinny said...

Talk about devious! For 160 years, the Chicago Tribune hid its lefty America-hating tendencies in order to deceive its readers into believing that it is a conservative newspaper. Obviously it was just waiting for the chance to endorse a Democrat who would completely destroy the very fiber of our nation.

Ron said...

Marshall, it appears you are amazed that the right is in this position, just like the guy at the rally. Let me explain it to you from the position of one that is not amazed.

Conservatives rally the country to fight the enemies of America..again for about the 13th time in my life. Like every presidential election. These enemies include....well, just about any or everybody you can imagine. Most especially a large number of other American citizens. Republicans are going to enforce freedom and morality ..except they will do it this time without ..ok you get the idea I hope. Even if your calls of alarm were valid a whole lot of people are tired of your methods. You are way past the cry wolf stage. I'm not even trying to tell you you are wrong at this point because that will remain to be seen. All I am saying is that people have decided that the conservative prognostications and evaluations have been wrong in their mind and it's time to see what the other side has to offer. I have little doubt lots of hopeful Obama fans are going to be disappointed. First, if you ask progressives, their ratings on Obama and Biden are quite moderate. Only the most pressing of reforms from these guys. More than would happen under McWar though. Second, It's becoming clearer and clearer that the people REALLY running the big show is the money people. I'm talking BIG money people. Gotta play with them whichever party you are in. Third, no mere mortal of any political stripe can fix things fast enough to avoid some really bad stuff ahead. We as a country could get together as citizens and decide that we were all going to work together in a ww2 kind of way to defeat our problems at home and economically . But especially with the divisions apparent on this and blogs all over the country it is apparent that is not going to happen. Plus, as long as we are focused on foreign wars and pushed to patriotism that almost reaches the false diety stage we are never going to get there. We are as great a country as we make it. Right now what we are making it is not something I am particularly proud of.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Vinny, Ron, Feodor - you can dance this same round with Marshall over and over because, in fact, he just knows that he is right and we liberals, regardless of the facts we have at our disposal to show him that he is either trafficking in deliberate lies, or is deluding himself because of his devotion to certain political ideas, are just sill, ideologically blinded idiots. Trust me. As someone who has been there and done that, the best you have done - and it is far better than my best efforts - fall on deaf ears because he considers ours "facts" rather than facts.

I applaud your efforts, but don't feel bad if all he does is say, "You're wrong" over and over again, or completely ignores what you say, or repeats himself, or whatever. For example, any consideration of the wealth of information out there clearly indicates that Sarah Palin is supremely unqualified for the office of VP. Even right-wingers like Peggy Noonan and George Will have said so publicly. When I pointed this out, I was accused of hypocrisy, as if somehow a source I previously had dismissed had suddenly become golden in my eyes because it agreed with me. When I carefully explained why I thought this was important, it all came down to, "You just like them now because they agree with you." Gah!

I would like to see Marshall do a prediction post, perhaps on the Electoral College vote, and give substantial reasons for his predictions. The weekend or so before the election, I will be doing one, and then, on the 5th, we can compare notes.

Vinny said...

Geoffrey,

Happily, I don't feel bad when Marshall tells me I am wrong. I like to interact with people at different points on the political spectrum and I find Marshall generally willing to engage on the substance of my comments.

Marshall Art said...

Thanks Vinny. I appreciate the sentiments. What my man Geoffrey fails to mention is that though he might give "facts", he does nothing to support them. Apparently, if Geoffrey says so, the case is closed and I should simply accept what he says as absolute truth. Unfortunately, I can't bring myself to do so since it is generally demanded of me that I support my point of view. You'll find I have a pretty good record of reading other people's links (not 100%, but way up there) unless an individual has a history of providing crappy support. Even then, I usually take a glance.

As to Will and Noonan, I stand by what I said because of how these two were presented, as if because they didn't like Palin, that by golly, she must indeed suck. Doesn't work that way. We on the right don't always agree and I know they aren't the only rightwingers to prefer someone else. But their opinion isn't proof of anything more than their opinion, so Geoffrey's offering of their opinions has no weight. In addition, this is typical of Geoffrey's debating style:

"For example, any consideration of the wealth of information out there clearly indicates that Sarah Palin is supremely unqualified for the office of VP."

What wealth? Will and Noonan and Kruse-Safford? Geoffrey does not accept such weak support from his opponents. I'd prefer just a bit of that wealth in order to actually have something to debate against rather than just "nya nya, Palin's no good".

As to the challenge, I ain't got the time. Love fest weekend out of town at the end of the week. Heavy study goals otherwise. Besides, I don't see the point of such an exercise. I'd rather predict next weeks NFL winners.

Now I'm out of time before I head out to ju jutsu class. I'll get back to the other dudes later.

Marshall Art said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Doc said...

No one should be monikered as "too stupid to vote," solely based on their choice. They should be called that only if they can't figure out how to vote. (Florida, anyone?)

Will and Noonan do seem to at least be consistent with their statements. That is more than I can say for Bill, Hillary, and Biden, all of whom stated that Obama was not fit to be the Commander-in-Chief.

Hillary also hammered Obama on multiple occasions regarding his affiliation with Ayers, craftily (albeit misleadingly) using the September 11th background as a reminder of the "terrorist" connection in case "Weather Underground" wasn't sufficient:
"Obama served on a board with former Weather Underground member William Ayers." and "that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11.”

Should that disqualify her from running for office?

Predictions? In my opinion, the above discussions are academic at this point. I have been predicting a close victory by Obama for more than a month. about 2-3 percentage points nationally and 3 or so more states than went Republican in 2004. If here in Virginia it goes to Obama, you can all go to bed.

Unlike those on the far right, I don't think Obama to be the next Stalin. I think there are some positives to take from him being President, and I pray that he doesn't screw things up too much. I do not think he'll be a very effective president, and I think the lifers in his own party will be mostly to blame.

Otherwise,next week: Steelers 21, Giants 20 and Tampa Bay Rays in 6. (Sorry 'bout your Cubbies, Marshall.)

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Marshall always like to say I don't provide evidence, yet I do. He just doesn't like the evidence I provide. In order to make a point, here's a link to a summary of a poll that shows that voters biggest concern about a McCain Presidency is . . . Sarah Palin.

Marshall Art said...

Well, Geoffrey. That wasn't so hard now, was it?

Of course there are a few problems with your link. I won't go with the fact that it's an NBC poll. I'll take what I can get with you and go from there.

First, the poll uses registered voters as opposed to likely voters. A small distinction, but if I'm going to give a poll the time of day, it'd be a poll of likely voters.

Secondly, I couldn't find anything that speaks to how many were polled and who they might have been.

Thirdly, for most conservatives that I know, most would prefer voting for Palin for prez rather than McCain, but we have to deal with whom we have.

Fourthly, the list of problems voting for McCain seem to be a list composed by libs. It is not such a problem that McCain might continue some of Bush's policies, such as extending the tax cuts, while opposing others, like not cutting the spending. But to simply say that continuing Bush policies is automatically a reason to vote against McCain is as stupid as saying there are any good reasons to vote for Barry O.

Fifthly, the piece says nothing about why any of those who have changed their minds about BHO have done so. Just what has changed to make anyone think this sow's ear is now a silk purse? What could he have possibly said, because there is nothing that he has done during the campaign, that erases all his non-activity in his past? What overshadows his very questionable alliances? What trumps his satanic support for abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever? What makes his harmful economic proposals seem better now than they did when they've failed in the past every time they were tried?

Like most polls, this one provokes more questions than it answers, and even more so, suggests that which I haven't been hearing except by a mere few pundits (the anti-Palin stuff).

So Geoffrey gets a gold star for actually providing something to support his position, but it's a very small star because the info is basically worthless. It is a start.

Marshall Art said...

Doc,

I appreciate your kind words concerning the Cubs. In my case, the hurt is twice as bad since I root also for the Southsiders, who also were eliminated in the first round. The Bears have the Lions after the bye week. Should be another win, unless they decide to cough it up in the fourth.

Regarding the stupdity of Obama supporters, I can't see a nicer way to put it. The man has way too many negatives for anyone to support him without ignoring, denying or simply overlooking those negatives. They have to also pretend that there exists in him qualities that have no basis in his track record. Keep in mind that this is a man who would have to don the surgeon's garb in order to support abortion more strongly. He is so much pro-abortion (not just pro-choice, but pro-abortion) that he believes a child who survives is not worthy of the term "person". This alone disqualifies him from consideration and anyone who overlooks this might deserve a term more serious than "stupid". Speaking well is not qualification, but even if it were, he only speaks well when reading a prepared statement or speech, not extemporaneously. (In fact, I can see the wheels turning when he is answering questions that suggest he's digging for an answer that won't put off the listener, rather than speaking from the heart as if he really cares about the issue.) He supports economic policies that have already been proven failures and will likely hurt an already shakey economy. In fact, his response to Joe the Plummer illustrate his socialist tendencies. Put that together with a House and Senate led by Pelosi and Reid and that spells major trouble for the nation. In fact, they will be the Three Stooges for sure (my apologies to Moe, Larry and Curly). His alliances with Marxist buffoons such as Ayers, Doehrn and Wright cannot be overlooked as to the influence they surely have had on his mushy mind.

No sir. Stupid is the nicest thing I can say about anyone who supports this charlatan. I stand by it completely.

Feodor said...

Marshall,

You've conveniently neglected my facts stated earlier, which I repeat below, adding this to them:

When Senator Obama was a State Senator, he did not vote for a repetitive law requiring life saving procedures for a fetus surviving abortion surgery because such a law already existed and because the Hippocratic Oath demands the same. The new law was trying to slip in a conservative agenda and manipulate the moral situation to do so

Every time Mr. Obama sat at a table with the reformed Mr. Ayers, Republicans were there, too. Conservative ones. Annenberg, no less. At a table with a reformed bomber and Republican moneybags working to fund the best thinking about children's education.

No meeting in a small, dark room with four other Senators, shuffling in the door with one's head down to talk to a head of Savings and Loan about protecting personal assets and assess while loosing taxpayer's hard earned retirement savings.

"They may be perpetrating one the greatest frauds in voter history":

Senator McCain to Acorn at 2006 conference:
"you are what makes America special."



As for Mr. Obama's Marxism: He is not opposed to the death penalty. He is for strict accountability for teachers and that their jobs should be at the mercy of performance evaluations (you will not hear that from any other democrat). He counts as his advisors Colin Powell, Warren Buffet, Paul Volcker, and other Republicans.

 As for any knee jerk reaction to charges of "redistributing the wealth," please explain to me how taxes are not a socially sanctioned, morally effective way to share the wealth for the good of the many? Socialism is not taxes. It is nationalizing almost all institutions that deliver services to the whole: insurance, electricity, gas, retirement savings, etc.

True, measures have been taken to nationalize our banks to a minor degree and that is a kind of modern socialist move, but this is a plan proposed by a Republican administration, approved by both parties in a strategy that's intended to correct American capitalism not destroy it. As if Joe Biden can spend thirty in the US Senate and countenance marxism.

And Obama or McCain will do their best to continue to do what is needed to make the correction stick.

Your "undeniables," Marshal Art, are figments produced by your denials. Your label of "stupidity" comes to us because we cannot pass the same test of believing our own bait and switch. You fish and catch only yourself.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Questions of who is "stupid" for supporting whichever candidate aside, I would ask, again, for a prediction on the election, Marshall. You don't have to go in to detail - which states will go for whom and why - but just a general one word answer, "Obama" or "McCain". I know you say you don't have time, and that's such a convenient excuse to not do something.

I made my prediction yesterday, with a range of Electoral Votes, and a link to a map and everything. I didn't give my reasons why I thought that way, but I will if you ask me. You certainly seem to have enough time to read rot by Thomas Sowell and drivel by Sister Touldjah. Why not take a few minutes, say who you think will win, and maybe a few sentences on why.

Marshall Art said...

That's easy Geoffrey. I think the odds of an Obama win are high. The reason is the aforementioned stupidity of Obama supporters who give him praise without heed to his record as an Ill State Senator or his completely worthless time as a US Senator. His work with Ayers in education produced no change in the rankings of Illinois student scores, especially in the inner city, which was a major target. His work in creating affordable housing has resulted in boarded up tenaments. He is without any significant achievements as either a politician or as a community activist. He has far less experience that justifies any consideration for president than does Sarah Palin. He considers a living, breathing child as less than a person soely because it survived an abortion. He has no record of doing anything that suggests a reaching out across the aisle.

Another reason why he's likely to win is due to a total failure on the part of the GOP to address issues from a conservative perspective, to trumpet their successes in tax policy, to blow their horn on the successes in the war on terror. McCain has been every bit as woeful in eluminating the benefits of conservatism as Bush, and no one else has stepped in to do so in a compelling manner. The right has allowed the lunatics on the left to dictate who the right is even despite the many fine and articulate pundits on talk radio, blogs and conservative periodicals. Add to that the fact that lefties are not willing to take the time to really study any issues (present company excepted, although they fail to comprehend basic truths), much less take the time to listen to rightwing voices.

But to truly pick a winner, when polls are notoriously wrong, is to truly waste time. Just before logging on I saw a blurb regarding how tight the race is. Earlier in the day I'm hearing Barry's up by ten points. If the pros, whose job it is to follow such things, aren't up to the task, then I'm not about to pretend I could do better. Take whatever clues you think are indicative of a win for either dude and you still end up with a 50/50 chance of being right. Big freakin' deal and I'll settle for a coin flip thank you very much. Pick the winner and you'll impress me not at all. Enjoy your boner if you do.

Marshall Art said...

Feodor,

I've heard of a previous law that supposedly was sufficient to protect the lives of those sad innocents. Not only were they totally INsufficient, as Jill Stanek reported, but Barry never used that as a reason for his lack of support for the various versions of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I'm sure he's happy that you have provided an excuse to use now. I would also like to laugh aloud at your suggestion of the Hypocratic Oath. Far too many butchers making a living killing infants for that to ever freakin' matter.

You are a freakin' liar to suggest that Ayers and Doehrn are in any way reformed just because they aren't planting explosives at present. They are totally pleased with their histories as murderers and scumbags. And I don't give a rat's ass who else was in the room with them and Obama. None of them are running for president at present. And there has been nothing that should ever be considered the best thinking regarding education where marxists are connected.

You seem to satisfy yourself with the least little thing while ignoring the bigger picture of with whom Barry runs and what they think is best for the nation. Don't waste my time trying to justify their crap with such lame nitpicking.

Feodor said...

"I've heard... supposedly..."

"I'm sure he's happy.... I would also like to laugh... Far too many butchers..."

"You are a freakin' liar... The are totally pleased... I don't give a rat's ass... marxists," Marxists, I see dead Marxists!

Marshall,

When you begin to sound like a whinny fifteen year old who is not getting his way and can't take up the consequences of the Keating Five compared to The Annenberg Foundation, you've not only lost it....

you've lost. You're way in the weeds and can't see clear ground.

See you, brother.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

So, what I'm hearing is that Obama will win (a) because the country is getting dumber; (b) our country, riding a high tide of prosperity and optimism because of the multiple successes of conservative economic policy at home and conservative foreign policy abroad just aren't well known enough to the stupid American people who think the economy sucks and will suck even more in the near future and that Iraq is a total disaster while Afghanistan is an epic fail waiting to happen; (c) the polls are wrong anyway (except when they consistently predicted a Bush win in '04), so who cares what the polls say, so McCain might just pull out an "upset" that is so only to us stupid liberals bent on destroying the country.

I would prefer you not advise me on how I spend my time ("enjoy your boner"), thank you very much.

In fact, should Obama win in 12 days, my attitude will be one of celebration on Tuesday night/Wednesday, then returning to the real world where his incoming Administration will face a situation only one other President-elect has had to face - a crumbling financial/economic infrastructure, a level of despair and sense of drift among the populace that is almost unprecedented, a bitter, defeated but unrepentant minority party - with the added bonus that there will be years of work ahead repairing the stature of the United States abroad, and implementing a foreign policy that actually works. Obama is as conventional as they come, so there will be much work to do, nudging him and spineless Democrats in Congress in the right direction, so there will be as much to talk about, and argue about, in the next eight years as there has been in the past eight.

Marshall Art said...

"When you begin to sound like a whinny fifteen year old who is not getting his way and can't take up the consequences of the Keating Five compared to The Annenberg Foundation, you've not only lost it....

you've lost. You're way in the weeds and can't see clear ground.

See you, brother."


Wow. Was that all it took? Cool.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

Didn't want you to think I've overlooked your comment. Point a about sums it up, yeah. You see, we have had a wave of prosperity since the second wave of tax cuts in '03. It lasted till about late '07. Not great, but not a bad run, either. Would have been better had George not allowed so much spending to go by without whippin' out the veto pen. Would have been better had jerks like Frank and Dodd not pretended there was no problem brewing with FF and FM. Would have been better without whiney libs complaining about other peoples' successes when they should have been focussing on their own. Lots of ways it could have been better, lasted longer, brought along more people, but isn't that always the way? But the stupid who support Barry O don't really care about facts as much as grabbing that power to which they unjustifiably feel entitled. Look at Feodor. He thinks Ayers is reformed. Sad that so many have their heads up their asses. If they'd extricate them and wipe the poop from their eyes, they'd see Barry for what he is: wrong for the presidency.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

OK, so let me see if I understand. In 1993, Clinton raised, modestly, taxes in the higher tax brackets, closed some loopholes, and ushered in the longest economic expansion in peace time in our nation's history. For the first time since the early 1970's, the average wage actually rose. The deficit not only disappeared, we had projected surpluses that many were talking about using to end our national debt.

Even setting aside 9/11, the economy was faltering in 2001, and through 2002 we were in a modest recession. The tax cuts ended any hope of budget sanity, combined with a war without any kind of economic controls. In eight years of the Bush Administration, there were fewer jobs created than during any given single year of the Clinton Administration. And Democrats hate prosperity? Explain that to me again.

Marshall Art said...

Hmmm. Your "facts" conflict with the facts of the letter writer highlighted in the Tidbits post. Who should I believe? Hmmmm. A conundrum.

But let me get this straight: You're saying that Clinton's tax increase is what spurred an era of prosperity? That's pretty funny. Wasn't there something known as the "dotcom boom" a major factor in prosperity? Oh, that's right, you've got "most economists" on your side. Those nameless giants that somehow prove wrong that which is plain to see and understand. My mistake.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

OK, so let me get this straight. The prosperity of the Bush years is all Bush's tax cut's doing. The crash, however, is all the work of hate-filled Democrats. On the other hand, the prosperity of the mid- to late-1990's (the dot com bubble started in mid 1999 and lasted about a year), was all because of the health of the private sector, which thrived despite the Democratic tax hikes.

My facts conflict with what "tidbits"?

I guess what I'm hearing from you is that all bad is caused by Democrats, or at least results despite the best efforts of Democrats to stymie our economy at home and destroy our military abroad. Republicans, on the other hand, just don't get credit enough for how wonderful our country was right up until the Democrats, once again, took control of Congress, which means (of course) that they are responsible, once again, for all the crap we are currently experiencing.

I'll toss out a fact - a real one you can look up on Google fairly easy - and see if it settles somewhere close to home. Prior to the 1990's, the longest peace-time economic expansion occurred during a time when our income taxes were not only far more progressive, but far more confiscatory than they are now or have been since the first round of tax cuts Congress passed during the first Reagan Administration. The top tax bracket was a whopping 75%. Yet, it didn't seem to hurt our common prosperity a whit.

Anyway, just a thought, unrelated to anything in particular.

I do get you now. I really do. You are a Manichaean, with the Republicans as absolute good, and Democrats as absolute evil - anti-American thugs who hate our country so much they want to run us all in to the ground, impoverishing us, stealing from the hard-working among us to give to the undeserving poor they create through their failed fiscal and monetary and budget policies. We are weaker abroad because the Democrats, even those who served in the military, hate the military, hate this country, and, being pacifist, would rather surrender in the face of aggression than deal with it as any good American should.

You are almost a parody of a right-winger, Marshall, and I applaud your ability to think all these things and still get up and go to work on time. Seriously.

Ron said...

What trumps his satanic support for abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever?


Bwahahahahahzah

His Satanic support for abortion on demand?!?

With all the circumstances possible you are pure and holy in your opposition.

When it comes to pro life lets talk about war. With all the circumstances possible you seem to find many good enough to kill, innocent and guilty people. And instead of saying all this killing is not something spiritual people should encourage...you actually support it going on and on and on.It's not about finding a way to end the killing, it's about convincing people to kill or be killed.
Your satanic views are an insult to my morality.

OK, not really but your piety isn't working for me. Might want to try a different direction.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

Just think of how much better life would have been during that period had the government not been confiscating so much of the profits of those doing the expanding.

Marshall Art said...

Ron,

What are you laughing at? There has been absolutely zero occasions where Barry O has voted to restrict anything to do with abortions. Nothing whatsoever, including the BAIP Act, which even women's groups have shown more decency. He, like too many other chuckleheads, think it's a right to put to death one's own child. He thinks it's a punishment to go ahead with a pregnancy should one of his daughters "makes a mistake" (yeah, why should they deal with the consequences of their actions?).

But no, let's not talk about war, because your comments at that point are less than coherent. If you like, you can run a post at your blog on the subject, alert me here, and I'll discuss it there. I'll even direct others to it. But the issue here is people who should not vote, most of whom support Obama.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Marshall, your response makes very little sense. Yes, the 90's were good, but consider how much better they might have been had taxes been lower? Yet, it was fiscal, budgetary, and monetary sanity that created a situation that allowed for economic expansion unprecedented in our history. Creating seriously regressive income taxes, however, during the Bush years stifled economic activity even as it created a situation where financial speculation could destroy the workings of our financial markets.

Explain to me how any of this makes any kind of sense considering the real world.

Marshall Art said...

No, Geoffrey. I've got a better idea. YOU tell ME how taxing a company MORE makes them more productive and more able to hire, expand, develop, etc. How does having LESS money from profits benefit a company? How does having LESS money benefit anyone?

Ron said...

Marshall, my issue is you term someone and by inference others, satanic because the disagree on abortion. There's as many reasonable rationalizations for this as there is for many other types of things that are termed killing that "pro life" people support. I am laughing because you are calling me and others Satanic.

It's overly pious. Leave that part out.

Marshall Art said...

No Ron. I specifically referred to Obama's total support for abortion on demand for any reason at any time by anybody anywhere. If you feel that you, if you are a supporter of abortion, are somehow being smeared with the same accusation, perhaps it's your own guilt. Here's some advice: oppose abortion and the guilt will disappear.