Watching republicans makes me realize there are more assholes in the world than there are asses.
These assholes inundate the media, message boards. Hell, everywhere, with their message of screw anyone that isn't wealthy.
Browsing through the news shows this evening, virtually every republican was calling for tax reform that didn't raise taxes on rich people. They want to raise taxes on poor people though. That's their idea of reform.
These shitheads have no problem with government breaking the promise of Social Security. But they'll all be damned if Halliburton and Raytheon and other defense contractors that grew fat off the government teat have their business scaled back through defense cuts. These asshole lying bastards are screaming about China building ships and we need to spend more and build more ships out one side of their asshole mouths. Then ripping on President Obama for pulling troops out of Iraq or helping Libyans rid themselves of Quadaffi. Jesus Lord Almighty these republicans are hypocritical assholes. Has there been an honest one since Gerald Ford? Of course, that may be the reason republicans are lying assholes. The last honest and decent one they had lost an election.
49 comments:
Just back with heat from the widespread power outages (still out in some area's of the northeast)and thinking maybe it wasn't so bad being "blind" after all... Just sayin.
Ike is spinning in his grave.
Here is the problem.
This has been their agenda all along.
We are not a democracy, or a republic.
America is a franchise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwOTm3ShQh0&feature=uploademail
Not to be a stickler but I believe that decent Republicans like Lowell Weicker, Jacob Javits, and Ed Brooke all lost subsequent to Mr. Ford.
Decent republicans lost because they didn't rally the republican base of idiots, zealots, bigots and homophobes Will.
You reinforced my premise. Thank you.
RZ said America is a franchise. Like a McDonalds that pays minimum wage. Good point RZ.
I don't know what you're referring to with the blind thing RN. if it means no internet, that sucks. I'd hate to disappoint Kim Kardashian who's divorcing that chump so she has more time to read Truth 101.
Truth - No power, no heat, no internet, almost 5 frigging days of great northeast weather. Was one of the 3 million who got jacked by the power of mother nature.
But in a way it was nice being blind. I mean... after all, now I must resume the journey to help restore sanity, respect, and civility to politics and political discourse. As well as a bit of rational thought perhaps.
Either way your favorite thorn is up and running once again...
Later my liberal friend...
ps: Ya think if I posted Kim Kardashian's hot picture at RN my traffic might sky rocket? ;)
Kim Kardashian? Just found out who she is a few weeks ago. I thought she was a movie or teevee star, but she's like Paris Hilton, apparently, she's famous for being famous.
PS. Lincoln Chafee is another one of those old time smart, cooperative Republicans who
doesn't don't run around telling government to stay out of Americans' lives while at the same time asking government to stick its nose in women's uteri.
What you do is get the most revealing one you can find and then post a scathing rebuke of it. You'll be a hero to righties that don't know you really aren't a deluded fool and you followers list and traffic will skyrocket.
Shaw said: "...stick its nose in women's uteri."
Damn my good taste! There's a great one liner here.
Got to admit, even for talentless, rich white trash Kim is smoking hot.
RZ hit the nail on the head about American being a franchise.
Beach Bum - Packaged for sale to the highest bidder. Walla... American political elite!
joe,
"These shitheads have no problem with government breaking the promise of Social Security."
the promise of social security!!!!!!!!! and who made this so-called promise?
to declare that governments make promises is an illusion on your part.
governments do nothing but regulate.
They say anything they please because they can and are given the platform to do so and the only ones really calling them out for the severity of their lies are lefty bloggers. And we're right.
Another great liberal capitalist and another great idea:
http://www.createjobsforusa.org/on/demandware.store/Sites-Createjobsusa-Site/default/Default-Start?utm_source=create-jobs-usa&utm_medium=email&utm_content=takeaction&utm_campaign=promo-create-jobs
Let me know when the Koch Brothers do anything remotely similar!
So you're saying all laws and everything government does is a lie Griper?
You're saying this program that keeps millions of our elderly out of poverty is a lie?
Every now and then you make sense and have a good point worth thinking about Griper. This time isn't one of them.
I see what you're saying about the Republicans, Truth. The sons a' bitches keep getting hijacked. First it was the Moral Majority. Then it was the supply-siders. Then it was the neocons. And now, gosh darn it, it's the Tea Partiers....But, to borrow a phrase from one of my favorite "Seinfeld" episodes, "I don't think that more flan is the answer."
In a twisted way I do have to give some kind of grudging respect to the republicans for their honesty in this regard. Their policie will always favor the wealthiest among us. They lie like hell with this supply side, trickle down nonsense. But they are consistent in whom they are working for.
The democrats we've elected? That's a subject for another post.
Seriously, though, have you seen those idiots out in Oakland? My God, if the Tea Partiers had ever acted like that, Chris Matthews and the rest of those clowns over at MSNBC would have had a kanipshin....I mean, did you see the way that they acted when that ONE neanderthal brought a gun to a rally?
Fortunately, they no longer want your tired or your poor. They want to shed the ones they have now.
"So you're saying all laws and everything government does is a lie Griper?"
now, where did you get that idea from? it sure can't be found in anything i've said.
laws by the very nature of their existence are a fact of life thus can never be a lie.
lies are only found in the perception of the intent of any law. since you and i have different views of its intent it isn't the law that is a lie. it is either you or I that are liars, as you so eloquently put it. this makes your very implication of my meaning a lie.
------------
"You're saying this program that keeps millions of our elderly out of poverty is a lie?"
this statement relies on a perception also of what Social security benefits are. it only holds true if that benefit is a supplement to a person's private retirement funds or to a person's wages if he has to continue working after the age of retirement in order to stay out of the state of poverty.
but what about those millions whose primary or only income is Social security?
they are stuck in the state of poverty with no chance of ever getting out anymore.
and they are stuck there not because of the life choices they made with their money but because someone with your mindset thought he knew what was best for them and forced them to pay into it.
so, if people like you want a pat on the head for determining the life choices of those who are kept out of poverty with this program then you must also accept responsibility for those who are left in the state of poverty too as a result of this program
So as the tea partiers at one of the republican debates did, would you cheer a bunch of starving old people Griper? Let them die?
Ding, Ding...
Social Security, while perhaps being a very bad idea as the government immediately began using the confiscated dollars for other than their original intent, was never intended by FDR to be a sole retirement program for the elderly.
In fact at that time in history it was as likely one would die before collecting all the contributions payed into ones account.
Had the so called "trust fund" been managed and kept in a "lock box" since day one it is likely the current situation would never have developed.
However, true to progressive statist ideology the fund was never the trust fund it was set up and sold to be. The statist government immediately begin "borrowing" from the fund and replacing real dollars with IOU's.
At 60 years of age, having faithfully contributed {at the point of a federal gun} to my SS Account you're damn well correct I want my "investment back with 5% interest. A fair deal at this point in our nations sorry history.
Thanks to the progressive collectivists that have dominated American politics every since the late "supposed" great President Theodore Roosevelt.
nitey nite girls!
joe,
i don't know anything about tea partiers laughing about starving old people and if i did i still wouldn't presuppose the reason for it.
presupposing is in your line of thought as necessitated by your ideology, not mine.
besides, being a man of free will i cannot speak for any other person other than myself. and that goes for anyone. so, if you want to know if those tea partiers were laughing about them, you'll have to ask them, not me.
I answered your comment Griper. Don't backtrack on it now.
Truth - Your answer, if indeed it was an answer, was nothing more than an evasion.
Determinist and collectivist minded sheeple do it well.
And I just know you are not the stereotypical example of either. So if you would please elaborate for one of this nations seniors if you will... :)
Read Griper's comments RN.
He's insinuating poor people would be better off without Social Security.
Millions of people had pensions and lost them when companies folded or sold out. All they had left was the safety net of Social Security.
There are some things only government has the scope and authority to accomplish. Establishing a safety net, and I've never said Social Security should be the only retirement benefit people should have RN, is something only government can do.
We can get into the safety of Social Security as opposed to IRA or 401Ks if you want RN.
Social Security is a vital program for our elderly and disabled citizens. That it comes under attack is an attack on the old and helpless. We're not all as wealthy s Warren Buffet.
Hey, RN....
So, egotist, think you can go around a freely litter the internet with your comments and yet you delete the comments of anyone that disputes you on your blog!
That's real rational!
Truth - Please read my comment on social security.
While I do have basis issues on purely philosophical and ethical grounds with the very concept of social security I recognize the initial intent of FDR and the progressives of the 1930's. I am a history major. Albeit without the revisionist history you were subjected to during the 80's no doubt. Be it as it may.
SS was never intended to be anything other than a supplement to personal savings and or investments.
The concept was that of a trust fund {similar to a modern annuity}which would grow ovr time and the individuals account would as a result grow as well.
Unfortunately the frigging very administration that sold SS to the nation began arguing in the Supreme Court the statist governments right to use the money for purposes it was not originally intended for. Been doing it at the statist governments whim and convenience every since. Hence we have a pot full of worthless IOU's. Don't believe me check out the data yourself.
Long story short... For 43 years I have faithfully {at the point of a federal gun} paid into SS and I have every right {as do all who bought the socialist BS and were forced to pay into the soon to be bankrupt system} to collect my contributions with interest.
I am more than f'ing happy to accept the FULL value of all my investment with 3% interest compounded monthly for the 50 years of the use of MY money at the time I retire.
It is the damn unethical lying progressive government I hate.
So you want to talk Joe, have at it dude. I'll waste you and your collective determinist bullshit arguments.
if wanting our elderly to have a secure retirment makes me a collective determinist than I wear that badge proudly RN.
And when did I ever say Social Security should be the sole retirement income for anyone?
I do realize not everyone enjoys the circumstances we do RN. For far too many Social Security is all they have. And despite Griper's insinuations, that I've praised him for his ability to use so he has deniability, a sort of purposeful vaguary an his part, not all the people who only have Social Security were lazy or stupid. And you and I will both benefit from Social Security RN. Even if it isn't the main source of our retirement income.
And why did TAO get deleted? And will you just reactivate your Google account TAO so we know if it's really you and not some asshole pretending to be you.
Here is a response to RN and his 3% compounded monthly (dream on!):
http://livingstingy.blogspot.com/2011/07/do-you-pay-more-into-social-security.html
Truth - again you are evading the main points of my comment. Precisely because you know they're valid and in such validity you would need to admit the rational and business correctness of my points. But never mind, I realize the emotionalism of the badge wearing set is all that resonates.
As to TAO, I deleted his comment because I will no longer stoop to his level.
His comment added noting of substance and it was disrespectful both to me and my readership. He has been advised to never vist in the future and leave a comment. Should he do so it will be immediately deleted as soon as I or another administrator is aware.
Tou will need to get the rest from T-man. I will not publicly engage in further comment over a nobody.
Why are all conservatives grumpy, mean spirited unhappy white men?
All they can think about is the gun held to their head by "government!"
All they dream about is free will and then complain about the force of government.
Hell, it ain't government that forces them to get out of bed every morning and go to work....but they probably bitch about that too!
We need to take a state like Wyoming or maybe Idaho and turn it into a big ol' free will colony....
No government, no taxes, and absolutely nothing but man living by his own means in the wild and lets see how many of these grumpy ol' conservatives race right out there to enjoy their little utopia!
How am I eveading your points RN? I'm explaining a program vital to the security of millions.
You're trying to present Social Security as a pure business decision when it's intent was to provide a safety net and we both agree. I wish everyone had the means so we didn't need Social Security. And to be frank, I don;t kmow anyone living high on the hog from just a Social Security check.
Truth - I am perfectly appygetting my initial investment with 3% interest compounded monthly for the 50 years I sall have been forced to pay into a system that likely will be bankrupt before I die.
A Ponzt scheme indeed. The f'ing FDR (YOUR HERO)administration begin raiding the fund almost immediately and all administrations have been doing so since... at their whim and convenience.
But again, as a progressive you are bound by your slavish willingness to deny your beloved statist government as screwed everyone.
Just give me my accumulated contributions with compounded interest and I'm a happy camper.
It didn't have to play out this way but Leviathan just couldn't help f'ing things up.
You are Truth becoming that which you accuse the griper of engaging in. Whether you admit it to yourself or not.
So your real problem is with government, republican and democrats, raiding Social Security.
Let's go throw eggs at Washington DC then RN.
Truth - You have finally understood at least part of my problem. Well lt should be part of everyone's problem. IE: Lying Leviathan. But of course for the progressive it is easily and readily forgiven. There is a complete lack of principle in American politics and governance.
joe,
you did not answer my comment. that is another lie.
a question is not a rebuttal of anything i said.
it is only a very poor attempt to get me to provide the premises you need for your argument.
-------------
"He's insinuating poor people would be better off without Social Security."
that is another lie.
i made no insinuations in my comments. i made very clear and explicit statements of fact.
every one of my comments has been a rebuttal statement of your own statements which i addressed very directly. and none of my statement can be called a position statement in regards to the retirement of people.
and i agree with RN. you do evade the issue, especially when the negative side of your position is revealed, a side you won't admit to.
I eveaded nothing because you never say anything in a direct manner Griper.
I am pro Social Security and Medicare. I want our elderly and disabled to be safe and secure. I believe government plays an important role in helping us all achieve a better life.
I've been clear on all this long before joining this community of bloggers. What don't you understand about government playing an important role on helping make our lives better Griper?
I always hear where you're coming from RN. I can dig much of what you say.
And I enjoy being a liberal colectivist statist determinist. It helps me explain and get away with a bunch of the shenanigans I pull with my wife.
Truth said ... "And I enjoy being a liberal colectivist statist determinist. It helps me explain and get away with a bunch of the shenanigans I pull with my wife."
And in the process defined and essentially admitted to the base lack of principles and ethics that refine government {often no matter which party is in power} today.
RN,
I'll have to take joe's side in terms of the issue of ethics. he adheres to a code of ethics, the code of ethics that abide by the principles of "determinism" and collectivism" which he admits to possess.
and i have to admit he is faithful in abiding by this code of ethics.
and this code is different from the code of ethics that you and I adhere to, which is the code of ethics that abide by the principles of "free will" and individualism"
and in recognition of these principles, his code of ethics is no less moral than ours because the differing principles require a different set of ethical thought.
example:
by his principles, society is responsible for the effects of the individual while by our principles the individual is responsible for the effects on himself.
it is the collective that is the dominant partner in the perceived relationship between a collective and individual.
by our principles the individual is the dominant character in a society.
and dominance determines responsibility of the justified use of force.
And so, now I get it, pulling shenanigans is a valid ethical code.
Apparently this applies for individuals as well as politicians and law makers.
Got it...
Sheesh... Beam me up Scotty.
I'm glad that you deleted Tao, Les. That blankety blank dismissively referred to me as a gadfly.
Will - TAO? Who the H is TAO? ;)
RN,
ethics is related to and subordinate to the principles of life that we hold.
if you do not feel it ethical to hold you to any other code of ethics other than your own, then as a man of free will that same code of ethics requires you to do the same for others. you need to judge them by their code of ethics also.
if you judge them by your code of ethics then that gives them the right to judge you by their code of ethics.
the fact that they believe that the laws of man has the ability to dominate the laws of the nature of this existence is irrelevant. we do not have the right to impose our principles upon them. they will have to learn that lesson of their own free will.
Given points, as the premise of free will requires such. Judging is a function of the mind, it should be founded in reason, and it should be open to reconsideration when and if new data becomes available. Beam me up Scotty, my work is done here for the evening... Well technically for this morning out out on the east.
Joe - Nobody can possibly be as tired as I have been in the last month after having packed up - I counted 80 boxes - every item in our house except the computer and two flat screens and then in one week's time unpacked it virtually singlehanded and have this house looking pretty good.
I'm ready to take on the next assignment that should come my way.
maybe save our country
Post a Comment