Time For the Proggies and Their Mindless Drones to Put Their Money Where Their Mouths Are!

IF this gets through and pResident signs it, then the screeching proggies and their mindless drones, who believe that they don’t pay enough in taxes, can contribute more to pay off the debt.

Of course, they won’t pony up any extra money.  Their philosophy is what is theirs is theirs and what is ours is theirs as well.

I don’t expect this to get past the obstructionist Senate (they haven’t passed a budget in three years)!


Update: Fixed the link for those too lazy or incompetent to type in the text.

123 thoughts on “Time For the Proggies and Their Mindless Drones to Put Their Money Where Their Mouths Are!

  1. watsonredux September 19, 2012 / 9:38 pm

    Deleted – off topic. //moderator

    • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 10:13 pm


      Question – would you be able to think if you didn’t have liberal journalists telling you what to think?

      • casper September 19, 2012 / 10:16 pm

        Would you be able to think if you didn’t have conservative journalists telling you what to think?

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:28 pm

        casper, on this blog we regularly see conservatives engage in actual political discourse, quite unrelated to what is being said by the few conservative journalists out there.

        We never see anything from the Left that is not a recycled talking point from a Lib talking head.

        You can certainly depart from this Lib pattern by doing what we do—-that is, state, define and defend a coherent political philosophy and a belief in the best way to govern the nation,back it up with historical references to the successes of your chosen political model, etc.

      • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 10:32 pm


        You are now repeating my original thoughts. Do you not see the irony in that?

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 19, 2012 / 11:09 pm


        It is rather strange that they keep coming here and are full of insults towards the blog and the authors. There have been, over the years, plenty of blogs where I was made to feel unwelcome – and so I don’t go to those blogs any longer. For goodness sakes, if someone doesn’t like what we write then just don’t come here – is it really too much to ask a person to just go their own way and do their own thing? Is our very existence such an affront that they have to spend hours and hours coming here to be mean?

        I really just don’t get it.

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 11:40 pm

        Mark, I have often thought the same, and have given it a lot of thought. The difference between conservative and Liberal posters is, to quote the new Leftist meme, STARK.

        I have come to the realization that for conservatives, it is about politics. That is, we start with the development of a coherent political philosophy, and then we like to talk about it. We don’t mind dissent or discussion, because we often learn from it, either from the comments of others or the work we have to do to counter them.

        But when I realized that the Leftist supporters who post here don’t HAVE an actual political foundation, don’t understand the ideology they support by attacking its opposition, don’t understand the opposition, and don’t seem to care about anything that is actual politics, the next question was, naturally, why are they here at all?

        This is when I came up with the theory that these people have personality disorders which would are probably shunned in their daily lives but which have been sought out by the real Left, the true ideological Left, because the Left can validate these personality disorders by identifying them as political discourse and then sending these sour, surly, hateful, hostile, belligerent and often vile people out as human speed bumps to clutter blogs and interfere as much as possible with civil and rational discourse.

        Just look at what they say, and how they say it. Just tonight watson has admitted that all he cares about is goading me into responding, playing a sick little game—this comes as no surprise.

        We never see an analysis of their chosen political system, a definition and defense of it, an accounting of its prior successes or anything that can lead them to believe that for some reason it will succeed THIS TIME. All we get is lying, personal attacks, sneering, sniping, and cluttering with Leftist talking points.

        I have no respect for any of them because I simply have no faith in their sincerity, having come to recognize that they are not here to argue a political system but just to annoy, interfere and disrupt.

        The thing is, I think they represent a lot of what I have come to call the Pseudo Left—because while they are de facto Leftists through their attacks on what they foolishly think is the Right, they really don’t know anything about the system they are supporting. I’ve started asking other conservatives about their experiences in talking to Libs, and it has become clear that this is true across the board.

        The base of the American Left is not people who believe in something, but people who hate something else. It’s a pretty bad foundation for the governing of the nation but it’s the only chance the Left has to gain and hold power.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 19, 2012 / 11:57 pm


        That is why I decided not to respond to them – I’d rather have a rip-roaring argument with sensible people whom I yet disagree with. To get in to a discussion with liberals means that, eventually, I’ll be personally insulted. I don’t see the upside to that.

      • tiredoflibbs September 20, 2012 / 6:13 am

        Cluster to watty: “would you be able to think if you didn’t have liberal journalists telling you what to think?”

        Cluster, watty wants to know the specifics of Romney’s tax plan. He can’t even take the initiative and go to Romney’s web site and research them for himself.

        He is obviously waiting for the sound bites and dumbed down talking points from some talking head AND THEN HE WILL BE READY TO POUNCE!!!

        Look at his behavior when it came to the edited Romney video!


      • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 2:09 pm


        media matters PAID trolls…..some have even admitted it.

  2. bozo September 19, 2012 / 9:39 pm

    Deleted – off topic. //moderator.

    • watsonredux September 19, 2012 / 9:56 pm

      Deleted – off topic. //moderator.

      (Ed. Note: Mark Noonan has never been an owner of this blog – you’d think even a liberal would have figured that out after 9 years)

      • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 10:15 pm

        you’d think even a liberal would have figured that out after 9 years

        It hasn’t come out in print yet in the NYT nor has it been mentioned on MSNBC, so it hasn’t registered on watsons radar yet.

      • watsonredux September 19, 2012 / 10:19 pm

        Deleted – off topic. //moderator.

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:25 pm

        wattle, not quite sure where you picked up the fantasy that anyone here gives a flip about anything you say.

      • watsonredux September 19, 2012 / 10:39 pm

        Deleted – off topic. //moderator.

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 11:07 pm

        Thank you for admitting what we already knew—that the sum total of your political involvement is petty goading and game playing.

        Given the content of your posts, this was made clear a long time ago.

        But what you fail to understand is that when you are led along, you reveal even more of your stupidity and pathology.

        Thanks you for playing.

      • watsonredux September 19, 2012 / 11:12 pm

        Deleted – off topic. Rather attack other posters than debate. //moderator.

  3. casper September 19, 2012 / 9:51 pm

    I’m all for this bill passing. It would be interesting to see who really does care about reducing the deficit. I’m willing to pay more to bring it down. Is anyone else?

    • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:23 pm

      ” I’m willing to pay more to bring it down. ”

      Fine. Go ahead.

    • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 2:11 pm


      Is anyone else?

      lets start with the 47% then go from there.

    • dbschmidt September 20, 2012 / 7:24 pm

      Be a small government Conservative–I would like to see spending cut including complete departments than sent another dime to Washington.

  4. casper September 19, 2012 / 9:58 pm

    Deleted – off topic. //moderator.

  5. Mark Edward Noonan September 19, 2012 / 10:03 pm

    The real story of that – and I wish to goodness the GOP and Romney would see it – is that income taxes on “the rich” don’t actually tax the rich…they tax the middle class. The real rich – the Soros-tyoe rich – pay little or no income taxes because their wealth is not structured that way (it helps if you’re a billionaire who can lobby to have the tax code written the way you like). What is really astounding with the flying monkey squad of liberals is that they don’t see it – they want to just get those mean, nasty rich people! But their own leaders wouldn’t dare to actually tax the rich.

    • casper September 19, 2012 / 10:06 pm

      If income taxes on the rich don’t actually tax the rich, why is it that the rich are fighting tax increases?

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:16 pm

        Because tax rate increases are bad for the country, bad for the economy, and unnecessary for a nation governed by the Constitution, which severely restricts the size, scope and power of the federal government.

      • casper September 19, 2012 / 10:21 pm

        Income tax is part of the constitution (article 16).

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:25 pm

        “Income tax is part of the constitution (article 16)”

        Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.

        Go back, read it again,move your lips if it helps, and think before you post.

      • Retired Spook September 19, 2012 / 11:49 pm

        Amazona, Income tax is part of the constitution (article 16).

        There is no Article 16 in the Constitution. Did you mean the 16th Amendment, Casper?

        Come on — be honest; you’re not really a teacher, are you?

      • tiredoflibbs September 20, 2012 / 6:21 am

        cappy’s poor reading comprehension: “Income tax is part of the constitution (article 16).”

        wow, cappy, uh, Ama did not talk about income taxes being bad for the economy. She said “…tax rate increases are bad for the country, bad for the economy,… ”

        Sorry, ama, watching cappy respond is like seeing an animal in pain. I had to “put him out of his misery”. He would have floundered a few more times, still got it wrong and then disappear from embarrassment for revealing himself to be a fool again.

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 10:34 am

        I used to just feel embarrassed for casper as he made a fool of himself time and time again, but then he degenerated into quite a despicable little weasel and I stopped feeling bad for him.

        He has, for some reason, degenerated into a large fleshy middle-aged male version of a snotty petty Valley Girl, tossing out stupid little snot-nuggets that sound like third-grade insults. He is addicted to the silly ‘SO…….” form of pseudo-discourse. (“I think we should get the federal government out of the welfare business.” “SO you think we should let children starve???” )

        I don’t really care what a schlump in Casper Wyoming thinks or emotes or whatever. What I do care about is that he is a teacher, and that he claims to teach subjects such as American History and the Constitution. Given his abject ignorance on these subjects, and his bizarre propagandic Leftist spin on them, I cringe to think what he might be telling these impressionable young people. He works very hard to be their ‘buddy’, and I am concerned that he might be able to feed such lies to kids who trust him that they are never fully erased by fact later in life.

        Even stupidity would not necessarily disqualify him a teacher, but his politically motivated disregard for the truth is disturbing.

    • watsonredux September 19, 2012 / 10:25 pm

      Mark said, “The real story of that – and I wish to goodness the GOP and Romney would see it – is that income taxes on “the rich” don’t actually tax the rich…they tax the middle class.”

      Agreed. It’s wrong that I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes (both federal income taxes as well as all taxes taken in total) than someone with $250 million in income like Mitt. It just is. At best, he should be paying the same percentage as me, but not less.

      I think Romney does see it, but it’s not really something he wants to pursue because it would shine the light back on his own income taxes and why he pays so much less as a percentage of income than many Americans do with far less means.

      • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 10:29 pm

        $250 million in income like Mitt.

        He doesn’t have $250 million in income. Care to rethink that?

        And his tax rate is not an income tax. Can you guess what it is?

      • Amazona September 19, 2012 / 10:31 pm

        wattle, tell me, do you really fail to understand the reason that taxes on interest, dividends and long-term capital gains are lower than regular income?


        Because we have all explained this to you several times, and there are many sources for other explanations as well. Why do you have such a hard time with this? Why do you call it “wrong”?

        Why do you think income should be taxed twice? Why do you think we should inhibit investment in business and the economy?

      • watsonredux September 19, 2012 / 10:46 pm

        Little Amy said, “wattle, tell me, do you really fail to understand the reason that taxes on interest, dividends and long-term capital gains are lower than regular income?”

        Oh, Amy, pleeze, explain it to me again. Take as many words as you like. I love reading your thousand words screeds. I anxiously await your wisdom.

      • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 10:50 pm

        The point is that he should pay more, just as I already do.

        He will. In 2014, with the implementation of Obamacare, cap gains increase by 3.8%. You got your wish. Now what?

      • watsonredux September 19, 2012 / 11:09 pm

        Cluster said, “He will. In 2014, with the implementation of Obamacare, cap gains increase by 3.8%.”

        Yes. I will pay more, too. But that doesn’t address the fact that, as Mark said, the real rich get away paying a much lower percentage in taxes than the folks making a tiny fraction of their income. To me that’s just wrong.

        Cluster said, “The key is to reignite the economy, get the money moving again so it is taxed more often, and you do that by lowering the rates, eliminating loop holes, and letting more people keep more of their own money to spend and invest.”

        But the facts show that lower tax rates does not spur growth. Yet another study was published within the past few days:


      • tiredoflibbs September 20, 2012 / 6:22 am

        watty farts in the wind: “It’s wrong that I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes (both federal income taxes as well as all taxes taken in total) than someone with $250 million in income like Mitt.”

        Care to prove this ASSumption or ASSertion?

      • tiredoflibbs September 20, 2012 / 6:26 am

        watty, Romney pays the same rate in capital gains taxes as you do.

        Why do you believe the myth (actually dumbed down talking points from a candidate that is relying on ignorant constituents to wage his class warfare campaign) that you pay a higher rate?

        The “rich” are resistant due to the fact that they pay 90% of the income taxes collected in this country. How is that fair?

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 10:18 am

        Well, the linked article does not actually tie in tax rate cuts or hikes to income, just has a vague graph where both exist but no relationship is established between them. It’s a prime example of the toxic mix of economic illiteracy and journalistic activism.

        Economic activity does not suddenly lurch forward or backward. It is a process. A great example is the tax rate cut under Reagan. There was some immediate activity as people sold off long-held capital gains to reinvest, but then it took a while for the investment activity to show an increase in productivity and income.

        Those who have never started a business, run a business, or had any responsibility for a business, are ignorant of the curve of business establishment, expansion and growth.

        If events occur which can be expected to jump-start a faltering economy, there is a predictable timeline. Let’s say an influx of capital is at the beginning of that timeline. In an industry based on production, the money finds its way into businesses which will use it to expand—this means placing orders for equipment, finding or building new production plants, putting new marketing plans into place, a series of moves which can take two or three or four years.

        (I just bought a relatively simple piece of equipment, from a factory set up to build it, in an economy where they had few orders, and it took four months to get it delivered. It arrived yesterday. A big piece of manufacturing equipment, possibly built to order, in a market flooded with new orders, is likely to take at least two years from order to delivery, and that’s if the factory is set up already to build that exact piece of equipment. If it has to retool, add at least a year.)

        Perhaps the funding is for research and development. Again, it is a process, where new laboratories are found or built, new scientists and engineers hired and trained, new equipment ordered, and process of actual R&D begun. Results are down the pike, and application of those results farther yet.

        So to the economically illiterate, they see the actual results of the influx of investment money not in the immediate time frame it was pumped into the system, but later on, when they can claim that somehow, magically, this surge in actual production and revenue should be credited to the guy who got elected years after the process was begun.

        This is why a meaningless chart like the one in the link is so impressive to such as the wattle. They see the spike in revenue under Clinton and the drop under Bush II, and they think (to use the word loosely) that this means Clinton policies created revenue and Bush policies decreased it. What their abject economic ignorance fails to inform them is that the revenues rose under Clinton because the tax rate cuts under his predecessor set up the pattern of investment, expansion and growth that finally peaked in the next president’s term. What they either can’t understand or prefer to misrepresent (what we call ‘lying’) is that the economic practices under Clinton undermined the foundation of economic growth built by Reagan, and the revenues started to plummet, leaving his successor with an INHERITED recession.

        In the Perfect Storm of Leftist policies, the inevitable results of the social engineering experiments of the Left begun under Carter happened on Bush’s watch, along with the disasters of 9/11 and Katrina and the drought of 2002. The disasters knocked the economy into a cocked hat, but the results of the CRA and its offspring created a sinkhole under the economy that just kept growing. Bush correctly applied the tried and true policy of reducing punitive tax rates to stimulate economic growth, but he failed to accompany this with spending cuts, and there was no way to keep up with the rate of subsidence into the sinkhole of the CRA-caused housing, banking and construction failures.

        And the simple-minded look at the charts like the one in the link and oooh and ahhhh about what an economic disaster Bush’s POLICIES were, totally ignorant—-or uncaring—-of the reality.

        In the meantime, the tax rate cuts under Bush have been offset by the election of a stone-cold Marxist who openly declares war on key aspects of our economy, mostly in area of energy, threatening or cutting back on coal, oil and gas production, while simultaneously thrusting trillions of dollars of debt upon the nation and saddling it with legislation guaranteed to increase the rate of economic failure well into the future. So people have been reluctant to invest, to move forward, to plan for an economic future, because the nation is now on economic quicksand, with the threat of even higher and more crippling tax hikes in the future, aimed at the very people whose investment is needed to turn the nation around.

        And even those who are willing to take a chance on this very risky economic future can’t get financing because of the coyly named “regulations” that have lending institutions hogtied.

    • Cluster September 19, 2012 / 10:26 pm

      The rich aren’t fighting increased taxes, what they, and rational people are fighting is the antiquated tax code that has far too many exemptions and loopholes that create the need to hire accountants just to figure out how to fill out the forms. Taxing the rich will do nothing, and that fact is widely known, but that hasn’t stopped liberals.

      The key is to reignite the economy, get the money moving again so it is taxed more often, and you do that by lowering the rates, eliminating loop holes, and letting more people keep more of their own money to spend and invest.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 19, 2012 / 11:17 pm


        I’ve got a bunch of ideas on that. I really would tax wealth over a certain amount, if I could – especially any wealth held in non-productive land or government bonds…and I’d hammer capital gains if they are realized less than a year after the purchase of the stock (this last is to stop our investor class from being Wall Street gamblers and turn them back in to sober, long-term investors). I’d end property taxes on primary residences, ranches, farms, mines and factories and multiply them beyond all reason on large houses, non-primary residences and skyscrapers. I’d make the profits from farming, manufacturing and mining taxed at 1/10th the rate of, say, profits deriving from movie/television/pop music productions, law firms and financial services. I’d end the non-profit exemption for any “charity” which doesn’t provide religious services or food/housing/clothing/health care to the poor (no more liberal political pressure groups being subsidized by the taxpayers to lobby for more burdens on the taxpayers…sure, this would hit some conservative groups, as well, but it’d be worth it to, for instance, end the tax exempt status for Media Matters). Give me power over the tax code and I’d make us Distributist within 6 months – and also a people where hard work, sobriety and thrift are rewarded.

      • Cluster September 20, 2012 / 10:14 am


        I agree with a higher cap gains on profits earned in one year or less, and also with higher property taxes on larger homes, or even second homes. However, higher taxes on specific industries is a slippery slope to me, but what you did prove is that there are so many good ideas out there to reform taxes which need to include broadening the base that we really need to get it done. Unfortunately, the democrats will never, ever, and I repeat, never want to do tis because as the code is now, they can pick winners and losers by creating more and more exemptions and loopholes.

      • Bozo September 20, 2012 / 10:41 am

        Mark, you’ve converted me to a Mark-ditto-head on taxes. You are exactly right. Spot on in every detail. And I am in an industry whose taxes you would hike. But right is right. That is exactly the way to fix this country.


      • dbschmidt September 20, 2012 / 7:35 pm


        Do not like to descent here but the old “Buy & Hold” no longer works in the new world. I am not a day-trader by any means but I set a cap (both up & down) on every stock I purchase and then sell when it reaches my predefined goals–sometimes several years (long term) but more often than not in under a year (short term) and I will pay the penalty and transaction fees as required until someone wants to “hammer capital gains if they are realized less than a year after the purchase of the stock…” The average I hold a stock is roughly around 18 months but I should not be penalized for holding less than a year.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 20, 2012 / 8:00 pm


        Well, then there’s the other half of the financial plan: return to a stable medium of exchange. I’d prefer a gold standard (yes, it can be done – you simply “revalue” our currency by turning it in at a 100-1 ratio and then gold is $17 an ounce…and then you find your happy medium ratio of paper to specie and don’t ever let the government go beyond that), but I doubt I’d get that; so, we’ll have to find something else, but we certainly stop the Federal Reserve’s program of “inflation is a good thing”. With a stable medium of exchange I think we’d blow out most of the need for people to speculate so heavily – which is mostly done in response to the knowledge that a dollar today will be worth less than a dollar a year from now (and very much less when the Fed is on a printing binge, as now). I’m willing to give on this – perhaps a graduated tax dropping steadily the longer you hold the investment with people who hold less than, say, a week really hammered.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 20, 2012 / 8:02 pm


        It would be hard to get the GOP Establishment on board but well nigh impossible to get the Democrats…for the Democrats, inflation just allows them to pay bad money for good over the long term while corrupt, crony capitalism simply provides them a swank lifestyle without having to work.

      • dbschmidt September 21, 2012 / 1:34 pm


        As I have said before and will again is I see Dr. Ron Paul as Fed chairman would be a prefect (although painful) match. We would be back on the gold standard, the Fed gone, as well as the minions Freddy & Fannie. Only person I could think of that would like to work himself out of a job within four years.

        Then I could see not having to follow my investments on a weekly basis (almost daily some days) because fiat money would no longer be the order of things. At present, as you noted, is that I have to see a large return on my investments just to break even with the QE going on.

    • bozo September 19, 2012 / 11:13 pm

      Hmmm, 80 million middle class workers, 7.5% of them being health care freeloaders (most in the middle class), Peoria middle class population = 29,900, so approximately 2,242 people in Peoria would see a tax penalty of $1200 for freeloading off the health care system, while the remaining responsible 112,758 Peorians would see their medical costs drop as a result of not subsidizing freeloaders.

      And this is bad…how?

      • tiredoflibbs September 20, 2012 / 6:30 am

        creepy assclown: “while the remaining responsible 112,758 Peorians would see their medical costs drop as a result of not subsidizing freeloaders.”

        Uh, no. Medical costs have gone up higher than usual since the passage of obAMATEUR-care. That fact alone blows your myth and DEMOCRAT lies out of the water.

        That is why it is bad.

      • Bozo September 20, 2012 / 10:17 am

        Problem with your “have gone up” statement is that this anti-freeloader portion of ObamaCare has not been enacted yet.

        I’ll give you that it might not work at all. New is never guaranteed. Heck, the Declaration of Independence would have been nothing more than a death warrant for our Founding Fathers had they lost the war. But no guts, no glory.

        If costs have been spiraling out of control for decades now, we either do something different, or act crazy and keep doing the same, hoping for different results. So far, my self-paid health insurance premiums have dropped as a result of the 80% rule by $180 a year. Not a big deal, but in my household, every dollar counts. And this is a really, really new thing still. It may go bad, but so far so good.

        If anyone has the infallible answers it’s the Pope, and he’s not crazy about Romney/Ryan’s approach to this problem either.

        OT: It’s a shame that I can’t praise Mark and Matt’s previously purposeful posts, and pine for the good old days when valid arguments were sometimes mind-changing (sometimes not) around here. Oh well. Goes with being a grumpy old man I s’pose.

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 11:53 am

        It might be part of just being a crochety old man, but more likely it is due to being dumber than a box of hair.

        And speaking of dumb, you might want to stop trying to be pweshuss and darling and making comments about which you know nothing—though, admittedly, that would get you completely off the blog.

        The Pope’s infallibility is restricted solely to matters of Catholic dogma. Period. Aside from that, the Pope is just a guy in another country, talking about what he wishes our country would do, and this wistful wish list carries absolutely no authority of any sort. He has no allegiance to our rule of law, there is no reason to think he understands or even approves of our Constitution, and in general his opinion of our politicians and our government is irrelevant.

        When our government intrudes on Catholic teachings, THEN he has a legitimate voice. When American politicians pay lip service to Catholicism and then promote agendas that are antithetical to Catholic teachings and beliefs, the Pope IS an infallible authority on what is and what is not acceptable to Catholics under Catholic law. When American politicians support abortion, the Pope is the authority on whether or not they can do this and still be considered Catholic and be allowed to participate in the sacraments. When American policy tries to force Catholics into actions that are contrary to their religious beliefs, the Pope is the authority on whether Catholics can be forced to do this, and on how people should view this assault on religious freedom.

        On how we run the country, not so much.

  6. Green Mountain Boy September 20, 2012 / 1:17 am

    How many of you collectivists plan on sending in more money than you owe next tax season?

    Any of you?

    • tiredoflibbs September 20, 2012 / 6:32 am

      They were able to send in excessive tax payments before. There was a mechanism already in place to do so. In Virginia, they did the same thing. Set up an account for those who wished to pay more (who felt they needed to pay more) than they owed.

      There weren’t many takers. In norther Virginia, there are plenty of proggies who want taxes raised – again, they don’t put their money where their mouths are.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 20, 2012 / 7:54 am

        Granted. Anyone who feels they are under taxed can make a donation to the federal government any time they like. It is nice however, to have another unneeded law passed just for them.

        Come on there bozo, watson. Pony up those greenbacks so folks less fortunate than you can have their snap.

      • bozo September 20, 2012 / 10:58 am

        First, I, and MOST responsible citizens, do this anyway, but on a local scale. When I pitch in for school science fair competitions, book drives and field trips, that’s paying more than my legal obligation for property taxes towards education. And I don’t have Buffett-sized resources. But it’s important to me, so I throw my all at it.

        Second, I LOVE this amendment because it’s a slippery slope towards what I’d LOVE to see: check boxes on my tax forms specifying exactly where my tax dollars go. How much to education – my choice. How much to defense – my choice. How much to “service the debt” a.k.a pay off China – my choice. How much to the NIH – my choice.

        Imagine if each government agency had to woo taxpayers for a share of the pie. Granted, Fox News would probably become one of the best funded government bureaus in the country, but that would truly be Democracy, and would create a government truly in the image of the people. Scary – as – he**. But fun to consider.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 20, 2012 / 11:11 am

        In other words you have no plans on paying Uncle Sam more than than what you owe. You heartless cruel bastard. Depriving the homeless of a house, the naked of clothes, the hungry of food. The jobless of income without having to work for it.

        The fed has taken on these duties more and more over the last fifty years and you don’t want to pay for it.

        Mighty conservative of you there.

      • bozo September 20, 2012 / 11:22 am

        Ok, maybe reading comprehension is not a strong suit. How is voluntarily paying more than required for federally and locally taxpayer-funded education not “paying more” than what I owe?


      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 12:02 pm

        “…..check boxes on my tax forms specifying exactly where my tax dollars go. How much to education – my choice. How much to defense – my choice. How much to “service the debt” a.k.a pay off China – my choice. How much to the NIH – my choice.

        Imagine if each government agency had to woo taxpayers for a share of the pie” ……

        Why just “imagine” this mess? Why not just look at it, analyze it, and call it what it would be? That is, the end of our representative republic and the descent into the chaos of pure democracy.

        The discarding of our Constitution and the advent of mob rule.

        This is just a typical knee-jerk reaction based on emotion, without any thought going into it at all, as empty-headed as blindly voting for “Hope and Change”.

        ….box of hair…..

      • Green Mountain Boy September 20, 2012 / 12:11 pm

        Science fairs? Book clubs? Field trips? That,s your definition of paying your “fair share”? LOL You are good. 😛

        Come on now pony up a few grand so Uncle Same can pass out some more Snap there.

        You need to pony that money so when Uncle Sam does make all those undocumented donkyrats citizens, they can have a nice home in the valley.


  7. bozo September 20, 2012 / 11:11 am

    Can someone help a clown out here? Hope this isn’t OT since it’s in the original post, but can anyone link me to any site where Obozo “condemns lavish lifestyles”? I am at a loss on this one. I get that letting Bush tax cuts expire on $250K+ is considered a “hike” and not a sunsetting executive order. Ok, whatever, but condemnation of lavish lifestyles seems more like Fox News and the GSA, not Obama towards private citizens. Maybe I missed it. Anyone?

    • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 11:39 am

      You really need to get over this Fox News obsession.

      It’s one of many news sources. Sure, the fact that it presents both sides of a question irks those of you who see “news” as advocacy for your own agendas, but gee, fella, get over it. Just don’t watch it.

      The reason so many do is because it DOES give both sides. Compare the amount of air time given to Liberals on Fox to the amount of time given to Conservatives on MSNBC or CNN.

      What the simple-minded have so much trouble with is not only the confusion of being presented with facts they then should sort out and decide on, but the evidently overwhelming confusion about what is news and what is opinion.

      If you are one of the lemmings who sees the contributions of the Complicit Agenda Media as NEWS, instead of opinion designed to promote an agenda, then of course exposure to actual information without a spin is going to be confusing. And, evidently, upsetting

      And if you think your opinion people are presenting actual unvarnished NEWS then you will probably think Hannity, O’Reilly, etc should be doing the same thing.


      On Fox, the OPINION people come right and tell you, they are offering their personal opinions on what they are talking about. They are openly and candidly advocates for their chosen political system and those who represent it. They are separate from the news department, which just tells us what is going on.

      Yes, we do understand that you people just can’t tell the difference, and we do understand how distressing it is to hear things that do not originate in the echo chamber of Hartmann/Rhodes/Schultz/Maddow et al, where they recirculate the lies and then admire the smell of each other’s farts. You LOVE what they say, it resonates with your personal pathologies, and it bugs you when others disagree. We get it.

      But this does not mean Fox is a government agency, or any of your other silly whines. It is just a cable TV station, where you can listen or not, and there is no reason to get all overwrought over what they say. Conservatives hear lies, not just lies but vicious and intentionally destructive lies, from your favorite talkers all the time, and we don’t have hissy fits about it.

    • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 12:08 pm

      You are correct, there doesn’t seem to be a quote where Barry used those exact words, which of course lets his apologists parse words and try to cover for him.

      What he did say is that there should be a limit on how much money people can make, that we should not be allowed to just keep on keeping our houses at 72 degrees or driving SUVs.

      The man who lives like a king on our money, with his $75,000 date nights and his wife’s spectacular spending sprees in Europe with her entourage and his $50,000 a week rental of vacation property can hardly decry “lavish lifestyles” with a straight face. The man who kisses the rear ends of Hollywood elites and Wall Street banksters can hardly come out against “lavish lifestyles” and still collect the checks these guys write.

      But he can, and does, and has, chide average Americans for our lifestyles, our belief that we ought to be able to drive what we want to drive, keep our houses at the temperatures we like, use lightbulbs that actually illuminate, etc. He’s all about restricting those freedoms.

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 12:23 pm

        Oh, Freddie, you simple-minded pudgy little hack, you. If you could get your head removed from your nether regions, where the view never changes, you might realize that it is quite usual to paraphrase comments.

        Of course that would not fit in so well with your addiction to being the absolutely nastiest critter you can possibly be, so I guess you are stuck with just being,well, the absolutely nastiest critter you can possibly be.

        How are those meetings in the Executive Suite coming along? Doesn’t the sound of the toilet flushing drown out some of your pithier comments?

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 12:28 pm

        BTW, the only place I find the term “condemns lavish lifestyles” is in bozo’s post, which he claims (and here I actually DO quote him) “… it’s in the original post…..”

        If you want me to call bozo a liar, I am OK with that.

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 1:19 pm

        Awww, Cav, ain’t you just the sweetest guy EVER, to take precious time away from staff meetings in the Executive Suite to pontificate so ponderously upon the obvious?

        What a guy. And soooo perceptive. Yes, I am human, yes I will someday pass from this plane of existence to another. Congrats on your grasp of at least this much reality.

        Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, at this point you veer wildly into the weeds of your delusions. But OK, I’ll play.

        What are my conservative beliefs?

        I note that you do not claim that Obama will be re-elected, just that whoever IS elected will somehow fail to meet your assessment of my own personal standards. Nice, though convoluted, setup of an impossible-to-contradict claim. Kind of a waste of time, though.

        What is it about “conservative beliefs” that you think will fail? I tried to make sense of your statement about conservative victory being so far behind in the rear view mirror, and couldn’t, so I paraphrased—I hope this doesn’t get Freddie in a tizzy. Or your Freddy alter ego.

        Do you feel like defining “conservative beliefs”? It sure would be a nice change from the goofball demonization of Conservatives we usually get from your side.

        Ooops—–sorry. I guess “demonization” is a complement to your kind, or a dog whistle anti-demon racist comment, or whatever is cooking in the Fantasy Factory this morning. Soooo hard to keep up with the latest in silliness, you know.

        Anyway, you put together your definition of “conservatism” and then explain why it will not appeal to the 50+ % necessary to win the election. Hey, while you’re at it, why don’t you go ahead and define YOUR political philosophy, and explain why you think IT will win over the nation?

        As for your silly lie about my alleged ” “purity law” ethic of viewing politics” while it is a stupid thing to say, I do not shy away from answering questions, though in the case of the wattle I do decline to do so over and over again so he can feel relevant.

        “I’d like to know in the light of the full Loyola University video where conservative bloggers said Obama was in favor of redistribution how do you feel about Romney’s continuing use of that word to describe the President’s efforts to significantly give more Americans a chance at economic success in difficult times.”

        Well, this is just a false premise from the get-go. It is false to claim that the redistributive policies of Marxism have anything to do with “…efforts to significantly give more Americans a chance at economic success in difficult times.”

        The two are simply not related, nor are they relatable.

        Yes, Conservatives understand the concept of redistribution of wealth. We understand this because we understand Leftism, no matter what flag it is flying at the time—-Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Progressivism, Liberalism, they are all based upon the same concepts of collectivism and redistributist theory.

        Your group is admittedly one of Communist, Progressive, etc. theory so you should understand this.

        And you should understand that taking money from the productive to give to the unproductive has absolutely NOTHING to do with the claim of “….efforts to significantly give more Americans a chance at economic success in difficult times.” …”

        Welfare has nothing to do with “efforts to significantly give more Americans a chance at economic success in difficult times.” Work requirements ARE, but they have been effectively stripped by Executive Order allowing states to waive them if they choose, by substituting pretty much anything the state wants to.

        And you know, I don’t think you people really believe that taking money from some to give to others IS “efforts to significantly give more Americans a chance at economic success in difficult times.” I think you realize this is just a spin on the true goal of equalizing income in the name of economic fairness and social justice and tied in with the surly resentment and loathing of capitalism.

        “And as a follow up can Mitt Romney, after showing his disdain for Americans who are struggling, now tack to the center in the hopes of gaining independent voters while not losing his base who applauds his comments?

        Another false premise. You do realize, don’t you, that when you demand a response to something that is invalid, you set up a situation in which no real response is possible?

        Of course you do. That is why you do it. It is all gamesmanship, the construction of the impossible so you can then gloat over imagined victories.

        But no, Mitt Romney has NOT shown “…disdain for Americans who are struggling…” and furthermore any claim that he has is simply a vile and vicious lie.

        What Mitt Romney has done is boldly stake out anti-Leftist economic and political theory, which is that the only way to help Americans who are struggling is to step back from the always-failed economic and political policies of the Left and strip away the crippling legislation that has hamstrung this nation, to get back to the free market system where jobs are created and struggling Americans are given a way to take care of themselves.

        This is anathema to the Left, which believes that people really can’t take care of themselves and that the only answer is the government taking care of them, which is why you all have such a violent knee-jerk reaction to what Romney is saying, and why you feel so compelled to counter it, whether with lies about him and what he is saying or chaff to distract from what he is saying or just a campaign of the Politics of Personal Destruction.

        Mitt Romney does not want to be part of ruling elite which hands out alms to a desperate and needy people. He wants to lead a counter-revolution which dismantles the policies that have damaged this nation and hindered its growth, to liberate its people so they can stop struggling and take care of themselves.

        And you Communist/Progressive/Liberal whatevers find this bewildering, as it goes against every emotion you have, and does not depend on collectivism, equality of outcome, punishing success, confiscating the property of others for redistribution, imposition of artificial and arbitrary standards of “fairness” and all the other sacred cows of the RRL.

        BTW, you also can’t seem to back up your positions, as incoherent as they are, with any examples of the success of the system you support by attacking its opposition.

      • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 2:18 pm

        this is SIMPLE

        a national sales tax……..ALL PAY, ……ALL PAY the SAME rate.

        the poor pay little because they buy little
        the middle pay more because they buy more
        the “rich” pay plenty because they buy plenty

        still (kind of ) progressive tax, yet ALL PAY their FAIR SHARE

      • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 2:20 pm


        In Fla we have NO income tax, we have sales tax and *******EVERYBODY********* pays it, NO, NONE, ZIP, ZILCH, zerO exemptions or “refunds” yet we all survive just fine.

      • tiredoflibbs September 20, 2012 / 2:25 pm

        A consumption tax that is the way to go. The more you consume, the more tax you pay. The Fair Tax is the way to go.

      • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 2:30 pm


        not sure how the fair tax works, but a sales tax is a consumption tax I believe?
        that way everybody has a dog in the hunt and that should make the trolls happy as EVERYONE is paying “their FAIR share”

      • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 3:40 pm

        America……..are you listening?

        Subject: Fw: Muslim Americans


        *This is very interesting and we all need to read it from
        start to finish. And send it on to everyone. Maybe this is why our
        American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.
        *Can a good Muslim be a good American?*

        *This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi
        Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:*

        *Theologically – no.. Because his allegiance is to Allah, The
        moon god of Arabia .*

        *Religiously – no… Because no other religion is accepted by His
        Allah except Islam. (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)*

        *Scripturally – no… Because his allegiance is to the five
        Pillars of Islam and the Quran.*

        *Geographically – no.. Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to
        which he turns in prayer five times a day.*

        *Socially – no… Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to
        make friends with Christians or Jews.*

        *Politically – no…. Because he must submit to the mullahs
        (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of
        America , the great Satan.*

        *Domestically – no… Because he is instructed to marry four
        Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him. (Quran 4:34 )*

        *Intellectually – no.. Because he cannot accept the American
        Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the
        Bible to be corrupt.*

        *Philosophically – no… Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran
        does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam
        cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or

        *Spiritually – no… Because when we declare ‘one nation under
        God,’ The Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred
        to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran’s 9
        excellent names.*

        *Therefore, after much study and deliberation… Perhaps we
        should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. – – – They
        obviously cannot be both ‘good’ Muslims and ‘good’ Americans. Call it what
        you wish it’s still the truth.. You had better believe it. The more who
        understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.
        *The religious war is bigger than we know or understand!*

        *Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from



      • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 3:47 pm

        VA DEM: ‘Minimum Tax for Everyone’…

      • watsonredux September 20, 2012 / 3:52 pm

        neo said, “Subject: Fw: Muslim Americans”

        And this is on topic how? lol

      • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 3:58 pm


        and your inquiry is on topic HOW?

        I see how that works….cooool

      • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 4:09 pm

        speaking of OUR MONEY and how they WASTE it……….

        U.S. Embassy Spends $70K on Ads Denouncing Anti-Muslim Film for Pakistani TV

      • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 4:42 pm

        tell it LIKE IT IS !!!!!!!!!!!

      • watsonredux September 20, 2012 / 4:46 pm

        Amazona said, “What he did say is that there should be a limit on how much money people can make.”

        Can you provide a link to that quote?

      • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 5:03 pm

        google…al Ubama %$&^*@#$#!^&%$

      • Baraq Hussain Umbamah September 20, 2012 / 5:38 pm

        I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.

        Now, some may think I’m condemning lavish lifestyles and there is an argument to made for that, but let me be clear because of the obstructionist Republicans’ War on Women, we can’t wait for the rich to pay their fair share, without the 1% and their tax loopholes, for the average hard working American to have some skin in the game. Now, I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but and let me be clear I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

        And i blame George Bush for that.

      • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 5:41 pm

        ALL HAIL…………Baraq Hussain Umbamah

      • Baraq Hussain Umbamah September 20, 2012 / 5:46 pm

        You bet yur ass!

        Now grab my clubs and meet me at the First Tee.

      • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 5:50 pm

        YES SIR……JFnK reporting for DOODY.
        (was in the nam)

      • bozo September 21, 2012 / 2:25 am

        Second cartoon from the top. Credit card commercial parody. “Condemning lavish lifestyles.”

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 11:29 am

        Oh, you are overwrought and fretful about a PARODY. In the form of a CARTOON.

        That explains a lot.

  8. watsonredux September 20, 2012 / 5:50 pm

    tired said, “The info is out there If you are willing to look for it. Obviously, you are too scared of the truth.”

    You know, tired, it was a simple question, asked politely.

    So the quote is: “We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.”

    What limit did he say should be placed on how much money people make? He said the American way is you can keep on making money if you provide a good product or service. (Implying that if you provide a crappy product or service, that you won’t. And also implying that there is no limit on how much money you can make so long as you keep on providing a good product or service.)

    Seeing as how you got this from Mark Levin, I could accuse you of regurgitating talking points, as you accuse everyone else, but it would be redundant.

    Earlier in this thread Mark said, “It is rather strange that they keep coming here and are full of insults towards the blog and the authors.” I have to credit Mark for never resorting to insults or name-calling–at least not directly. The same can’t be said for Matt. And it certainly can’t be said for Matt’s surrogates such as tired and cluster. They’re most responsible for setting the tone around here these days.

    • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 5:52 pm


      (Implying that if you provide a crappy product or service, that you won’t. And also implying that there is no limit on how much money you can make so long as you keep on providing a good product or service.)

      SEE………….. G.M. (volt)

    • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 5:58 pm


      for Matt. And it certainly can’t be said for Matt’s surrogates such as tired and cluster. They’re most responsible for setting the tone around here these days.

      Ohhhh yeaH !!!!! NOTHING and I mean NOTHING to do with the mouth breathing TROLLS is there?

      ROTFLMFAO…….. 🙂 🙂

    • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 6:09 pm

      wattle, you knew all along what he said and you still tried to bluff your way out of it. What a dishonest poopyhead you are.

      I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.

      Do you or do you not agree that this is the same thing as saying there should be a limit—-at a “certain point”—-where you should not be able to make more money—–where “you’ve made enough money

      Or are you going to continue with this foolish and dishonest game of semantics and parsing of words?

      Not that it matters. We know what Barry said, we know what Barry meant, and we know that your Barry knee pads are always strapped on and ready for duty.

      • Baraq Hussain Umbamah September 20, 2012 / 6:17 pm

        I believe that at a certain point you’ve made enough money because I can’t fathom using your own money for anything but personal pleasure and self indulgence.

        Since I’ve never had a job, never built anything, never had to save up for something I really wanted to accomplish like starting or growing a business, it is my opinion that, at some certain point you’ve made enough that you can spoil yourself with $75,000 date night adventures and golf at the finest links around.

      • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 6:26 pm


        why not …. At a certain point, YOU have TAKEN enough of OPM???

        lets see how that flies in al Umbama land.

      • watsonredux September 20, 2012 / 6:48 pm

        Little Amy (back to name calling I guess), I really, really don’t think President Obama truly meant that there should be limits on the incomes of Americans. I think it is fairly obvious that he made a quip to the effect that, having made a billion dollars, a second billion is not going to materially affect one’s standard of living. That is all. Then there was a “but” and he explained that the American way is to make as much as you can. You turn it into something else.

        You can parse his words all you want and claim he thinks he’s the decider, etc., etc.. I understand this is the best the Romney camp has to offer at this point, and you’re doing your best to offer it. Ultimately, the American people will decide.

        Little Amy said, “Awwww, is Whiny Wattlepants upset because he doesn’t like the ‘tone’ of the blog?”

        Mark is the one that brought it up. As I have said before, it’s really up to the B4V staff to set the tone for their blog. If they truly wanted a courteous exchange of idea, then they could have it. (Perhaps they don’t even want an exchange of ideas, but then I would wonder why they write blog posts in the first place. Perhaps some of the B4V authors could chime in.)

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 7:07 pm

        Well, thanks for the spin, wattle, or as are now in full whine mode, WW. But rather than pay attention to your claim of what Barry MEANT I think I’ll just go by what he, ah, SAID.

        After all, it is so consistent with other things he has said, like “When you spread the wealth around everyone benefits” and believing in redistribution.

        Why, if you are such a defender of the Left, don’t you, ah, DEFEND THE LEFT??? After all, if your loyalties are so passionate that all you can do is try to trash the opposition to the Left, spinning and lying and distorting, why can’t you just stand up on your hind legs and take a page from the Gay Pride book—Instead of WE’RE HERE, WE’RE QUEER, GET USED TO IT! you guys could start telling us YEAH, WE’RE LEFTIES, WE’RE ALL ABOUT REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, WE’RE NOT ASHAMED OF IT!

        Your nonstop attacks on anything you think might represent the Right only make sense if you can at least defend the Left, but all you can do is deny the Left and tell us it really isn’t what it, ah, IS.

        Seriously. Open a book. Marx was not only about redistribution of wealth, he was about the elimination of private property. Who did Barry hang out with in school, seek out as his buds? The Marxists. Who has he put into positions of power in his administration? Marxists. What economic theories does he blurt out when he is off-script? Marxist theories.

        The conflict of supporting something you not only don’t understand but find so offensive you flip out when it is pointed out that this is what you are doing might account for some of the hostility and surliness we see from you.

        I suggest that you either find out what the hell you are backing, learn about it, and start to defend it on its merits, or you shut the hell up because you are nothing but a mindless noise machine and speed bump wannabe, or you pull your head out and realize that the Right is not a bunch of horrible people but just folks who believe in the Constitution.

      • watsonredux September 20, 2012 / 7:18 pm

        Well, see, Amy, I don’t think President Obama is a Marxist. I actually think he’s more of a centrist. I think what passes for conservatism has become a caricature of itself, and Mitt Romney–a former moderate–feels he has no choice to become a caricature of himself. One day is ultra conservative to appease people like you. The next day he’s the moderate “father of ObamaCare” trying to appease people like me. He stands for nothing, the same fate as ultimately befell John McCain. Am I going to support President Obama in this election? Given the choice, absolutely.

        And if anyone flips out, it is you. Wasn’t it you that said, “wattle, not quite sure where you picked up the fantasy that anyone here gives a flip about anything you say.”

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 7:36 pm

        ” Ultimately, the American people will decide.”

        Platitudes for Political Dummies, p. 15

        And while you may not like the way the blog is run, it is not your blog and no one is dragging you to it. I know that I have, in the past, seen comments from Mark and Matt that they developed the blog as a place to discuss politics, and it is trolls like you who have come here with nothing but attacks, smears and insults, and refused to enter into any real discussion but just used the blog as a litter box for your mental droppings.

        Look at all the years we have asked you people to actually DISCUSS POLITICS. That is, to tell us where you stand, politically, to define your political philosophy, explain it, and argue it on its merits. To understand ours and have civil discussions based on mutual understanding if not agreement.

        And since I have been here, which is over seven years not, I have not seen one of you do this.

        All you ever do is try to smear Republican politicians, regurgitate hateful Lefty talking points, attack conservative posters, and in general wallow in spite and malice. Politics? Not unless you define politics as a game where all that matters is scoring points by being the most vile, because this is the game you try to play here.

        Just look at what you are doing now, trying to run back from honest discussions of one of the very cornerstones of Leftist ideology, denying and attacking anyone who comments on it.

        No, it is you PL trolls who have set the tone, and when it flies back in your face you whine and whimper.

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 7:38 pm

        A CENTRIST !!??

        The really sad thing is, you probably believe this, which of course is only possible if you are truly, completely, absolutely, totally ignorant of actual political ideology.

        Thanks for the admission, not that it is necessary.

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 7:43 pm

        Although I suppose it is all relative. Obama might be a considered a “centrist” in a field consisting of Karl Marx and Joe Stalin at one end and, say, Barry Goldwater on the other. In a field like this he might be closer to the center than to the right.

        But on second thought, no. Because Leftism is not a matter of comparing one man to another, it is the comparison of one SYSTEM to another. And the system he represents is definitely well to the left of center. It is collectivist, anti-capitalist, anti-nationalist, redistributist, and every ‘ist’ there IS on the Left.

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 7:45 pm

        And the sum total of what you think you know of conservatism is really just what you admit is “what PASSES for conservatism”—-and that seen through the far Left filter of political ignorance.

        We keep asking you to define conservatism, and you keep ducking the question. No great surprise—if you can’t define your own system, how can you be expected to define ours?

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 7:47 pm

        ” I think it is fairly obvious that he made a quip to the effect that, having made a billion dollars, a second billion is not going to materially affect one’s standard of living. That is all.”

        Except he didn’t SAY any of this, and to redefine his comment as a “quip” is a shallow, transparent and wholly dishonest effort to reframe the entire statement.

      • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 7:50 pm

        “Am I going to support President Obama in this election? Given the choice, absolutely.”

        Given ANY choice, absolutely. Don’t even try that silly trick of pretending that you might be capable of standing up and dusting off those knee pads.

        The sad/funny thing is that you are going to vote for him without the slightest understanding of his political ideology—or, for that matter, the slightest interest.

        To shallow and superficial people like you, elections are not about making the important decisions about how best to govern the country, they are just about gotchas and scoring the most points against imagined and imaginary demonized enemies—-the Left has recast politics as nothing more than a cheap video game, without the graphics, which is evidently what it takes to suck in people like you.

      • watsonredux September 20, 2012 / 11:34 pm

        Wow, Amy. I count eight replies from you. Thank you for giving me so much to think about.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 11:08 am

        No prob, wattle. I’ve always been able to both think and type far faster than you, so it was easy.


      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 11:09 am

        Are you just going to pretend to “think” about anything I said, or are you going to set a precedent and actually address any of it?

    • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 6:11 pm

      Awwww, is Whiny Wattlepants upset because he doesn’t like the “tone” of the blog?

      It’s not as if he made any more sense, or was any more civil, before guests were invited to post.

    • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 6:36 pm

      “We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.””

      And, ah, the only decider on what “core responsibilities” are being fulfilled is not the, ah, market, but the government.

      It is not a matter of business profits falling off because the quality of the products or services are no longer deserving of continued business. No, that is too important a decision to be made by the consumer. It must be made by government.

      And the purpose of business is not to make a profit, but to “fulfill a core responsibility to the financial system”. The contribution of a successful company to the economic health of the nation is really its only reason for existence, and the feds are the ones to determine how well this duty is being “fulfilled”.

      In other words, it is all about the government, all the time. The purpose of business is to “fulfill a responsibility to the financial system”, not just to provide goods or services for a profit. The former is Leftist dogma, the latter is the hated capitalist model.

      The hated capitalist model, which rewards good business with profit and backs away from bad business, is not adequate for the Left, who insist that only the government should make such evaluations and decisions.

      And, of course, while the government is decreeing which businesses “deserve” to succeed and which to fail, it is also ready to decree when someone has made enough money.

      • neocon1 September 20, 2012 / 6:40 pm

        I do NOT, have NOT, and never will be employed by the poor.
        and by being poor I will NEVER employ some one……

        I DO work work for MANY VERY wealthy people though I say keep on earning boys, the Princess needs a new wardrobe. 🙂

    • tiredoflibbs September 20, 2012 / 7:35 pm

      watty needs more hand holding: “You know, tired, it was a simple question, asked politely.”

      You know watty, it was a simple task to find what you were looking for. The trouble is you always play the ignorant fool or are you not playing? Are you completely ignorant of what obAMATEUR said but blindly follow him and mindlessly regurgitate his slogans and talking points designed for his ignorant followers? Yep.

      And no I did not get this from Mark Levin. A simple google search revealed the youtube video.

      Now watty tries to deny and spin: “What limit did he say should be placed on how much money people make?”

      He didn’t specify a limit (that gives him room to weasel out of the comment) – “at a certain point you’ve made enough money” – So there is a limit as to what would be acceptable to him. After that point or limit then you have made too much. Plain simple English – obviously you have trouble with “simple”.

      Then the greatest IGNORANT quote of the evening; “I don’t believe he is a Marxist. I actually think he’s more of a centrist.”

      Words cannot describe the utter stupidity and denial of that quote. The man said he believed in REDISTRIBUTION and “at a certain point you’ve made enough money” both clearly Marxist themes. He denigrates the corporations, denigrates profit, bends over backwards for the unions, bails out the unions over creditors and shareholders, while non-union workers (Delphi) lose their pensions and speaks of collectivist themes.

      Try again, drone.

      • watsonredux September 20, 2012 / 11:15 pm

        Ah, another courteous response from tired. Tired, only a smattering of Americans such as you and Amazona think President Obama is a Marxist. It’s just absurd. But then, folks like you also believe he’s a “usurper,” born in Kenya, didn’t write his own book, and on and on. Do you really think you’re over-the-top fear-mongering is winning a lot of converts?

        I tend to be in line with Andrew Sullivan, who wrote this post recently, “The Conservative Case For Obama – Again.”


        As for the video, okay, you got it from Townhall, where it was posted by Mark Levin. You and he certainly have a lot of common when it comes to arguing with people you don’t like.

      • tiredoflibbs September 20, 2012 / 11:46 pm

        Fearmongering? Watty?

        I used obAMATEUR’s own words against him from his past speeches and his two books. When a man uses Marxist slogans and self-admits to searching out Marxst professors during his higher education, it shows that his present in consistent with his past. Those FACTS have been shown here.

        All you have is stupid little denials with no facts behind them. You regurgitate the denials like a good little mindless drone.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 10:02 am

        WW, OF COURSE you’re in line with this silly article. After all, if you can find someone as loopy as you, who uses a lot of words to redefine “conservatism” in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism and then explains how his newly invented “conservatives” really love Obama, it fits right in with your own delusions.

        Get this:

        “Obama is simply and unequivocally the more conservative candidate. One commenter on the piece put it pretty simply:
        What do you call:

        1. Nationalism, without the interventionist foreign policy.

        2. Taxation equal to public spending, rather than just cutting taxes without making the hard choices to spend less.

        3. Slow and careful to adopt change, but realizing that change is necessary sometimes.”

        What utter and complete nonsense, but oh so typically Leftist. If you had ever bothered to read anything of the Left, you would know of its dependence on simply redefining terms, but this is ridiculous.

        And insane.

        And utterly stupid.

        "Taxation equal to public spending"?????? You KIDDING me?????? This is a Leftist concept from the get-go, the idea that you just decide how much to spend and then raise taxes accordingly. I am amazed that even you bought into this insanity.

        But it gets better, if by "better" you mean farther from the gravitational pull of reality: I view conservatism as the practical engagement with policy and political institutions to adapt modestly and incrementally to social and economic change with the goal of maintaining the coherence and stability of a polity and a culture. ”

        Yeah, I’ll just bet he DOES view it this way. And he probably views basketball as a game played on ice, tossing acorns, using long sticks with nets at the end, by Peruvian midgets wearing grass skirts.

        And, not quite sure he has gone far enough afield, he blathers on:
        “It is a philosophy of moderation and balance, constantly alert to the manifold ways in which societies can, over time, lose their equilibrium. It is defined, along Burke’s foundational lines, as an opposition to ideological and theological politics in every form.”

        Sorry, but throwing in Burke’s name does nothing to shore up a stunningly convoluted and absolutely invented definition of an imaginary and bizarre and untethered-to-reality “political philosophy” that has nothing whatsoever to do with Burke.

        The whole thing would be laughable, if it were not for the knowledge that somewhere out there a handful of village idiots were going to be reading this and becoming convinced not only that they had finally come to an understanding of conservatism but that Obama is really “the conservative’s candidate”.

        I am still not completely convinced that it is not a parody, a trap for the terminally stupid and ignorant, to lure them into quoting its utter nonsense so we can point and laugh. But no, it is probably not only meant to be serious, it probably represents the actual idea of an actual person, as it is as close to political philosophy as the Rabidly Radical Left ever gets. One of their “intellectuals”, illustrating the fact that to be an “intellectual” all you have to do is produce nothing but ideas, no matter how stupid or wrong they may be.

        Ignorant of the ideology of their chosen side (because to them politics is really just a game, where you do whatever you have to do to ‘win’, and not the serious business of deciding how to govern the country) but vaguely aware that it has some elements that most Americans would find distasteful, such as forced redistribution of wealth, they are even more ignorant of the ideology of the opposition, so they sit in their little bubbles of ignorance and invent claptrap like this.

      • tiredoflibbs September 21, 2012 / 5:02 pm

        “Taxation equal to public spending”

        wow, if that were the case, we’d all be taxed at 100% and we would still have deficits. If you took ALL THE WEALTH of the 1%, that would not cover government expenses for a single year. If obAMATEUR wanted taxation equal to spending or even spending equal to taxation, then he would not have first raised baseline spending 20% in his first two years PLUS he would not have run $1 trillion PLUS deficits the last three, he would not have accumulated $5 trillion in debt – more debt than the first 42 Presidents COMBINED.

        “Nationalism without intervention”… well he intervened in Libya without cause or provocation. That’s out.

        Slow and careful to adopt change – that is out too. As soon as obAMATEUR took office we saw that it was business as usual for the Democrats. He appointed lobbyists to his administration and hardly kept any conservative promise he made. He stated he would BAN ear-marks… then signed a bill with THOUSANDS of earmarks in it.

        Watty is living in a fantasy world if he believes that crap from the article. Watty is delusional and utterly stupid. I have run out of patience for ignorant morons such as he.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 10:09 am

        Actually, only the Pseudo Left, which has not bothered to read Obama’s books and are therefore ignorant of his own comments on Marxism, are “convinced” that he is NOT a Marxist.

        Only the Pseudo Left, which is so profoundly ignorant of the political system they support by their constant bleating about the imagined evils of the imagined Other, is so unaware of the actual writings of Marx that they cannot compare them to the utterances of The One We Have All Been Waiting For.

        Only the Loony Lemmings of the Left can overlook the fact that Obama’s family history was one of Marxism, his assigned mentor (the pedophile and Communist Frank Davis Marshall) was a Marxist, his chosen professors and school friends were Marxists, and his czars in the White House tend to be Marxists.

        They can do this because they don’t know what a Marxist IS, aside from the fact that this word, like “redistribution”, sounds bad, and must either be denied or redefined or both.

      • dbschmidt September 21, 2012 / 1:53 pm

        I feel a little different here but the results are the same. I believe Obama is a narcissistic anti-colonialist who is a puppet (of sorts) to his hard core Maoist / Marxist handler Jarret.

  9. watsonredux September 21, 2012 / 12:16 am

    “Fearmongering? Watty?”

    Yes, tired. You are consumed by fear. Have a nice night.

    • tiredoflibbs September 21, 2012 / 7:27 am

      I am consumed by fear, watty? So I am fear-mongering?

      Apparently, you don’t know the definition of “fear-mongering” as well as a whole slew of others (as well as centrist), there watty. Which is so typical of you….

      look them up and get back to us.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 11:23 am

        “Look them up” !!???

        Why bother, when they can just invent their own definitions?

        Did you know Obama is a CONSERVATIVE ???

        That buying anything is REDISTRIBUTION OF INCOME ????

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 21, 2012 / 12:35 pm


        And when Obama loses on November 6th – and he will lose – our liberals will then take the line, as they did after Carter’s defeat in 1980, that Obama’s problem was that he was too conservative. They’ll still live and dream for the day when we’ll get a true liberal who will finally do the job.

Comments are closed.