Warning: include(/home/hmtksteve/public_html/wp-content/themes/twentythirteen/dirs.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/hmtksteve/public_html/wp-config.php on line 17

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/hmtksteve/public_html/wp-content/themes/twentythirteen/dirs.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/hmtksteve/public_html/wp-config.php on line 17
Ramblings from the Marginalized » Politics

Politics


Politics July 29th, 2010 by HMTKSteve

One fine sunny day President Barack Obama was sitting behind his desk studiously writing on some envelopes when Vice President Joe Biden walked in.

“What's up big dawg,” quipped the veep.
“Oh, hi Joe. I'm just working on my three letters,” replied the President.

Joe took a step back and looked around before closing the door to the oval office, “you mean it's not an urban legend? Bush really left you three letters in the desk? And you went through all of them?”

Obama leaned back in his chair and tilted his head a little to the left. He wasn't sure how he should respond to the question. After a few minutes of thought he motioned Joe to come on over.

“It's all true Joe. Bush left me three letters in this desk, and over time, I have been opening them.” Obama took a moment to show the three envelopes he had just sealed. They were numbered from one to three and bore no other distinguishing marks except for the seal of the President of the United States.

“But, you can't be done with all three already, can you,” asked Joe?

“Do you remember when we first came into office Joe and we were pushing the stimulus bill? That was when I opened the first letter. It was very clear and to the point. It told me to blame the first major crisis of my administration on Bush, the former President.”

Joe nodded his head and scratched his chin, “I remember that. We blamed all the economic problems on Bush back then didn't we? What with TARP and all it certainly wasn't hard! If memory serves me right didn't we blame Bush for a lot of things?”

“I'll get to that,” replied the President.

“After stimulus went through we had a good ride for a while. Then we started getting all that flack about Gitmo not being closed yet. I knew I couldn't blame Bush for that because I had already signed an Executive Order to close the place down. So, I did the only thing I could do, I opened the next letter. This time it said to blame Congress. I couldn't believe my luck! It was perfect and the Republicans even helped by being so vocal about not closing Gitmo!”

Joe smiled that knowing smile and chuckled quietly, “yeah, they did play along rather well, didn't they!” After an extra moment or two to savor the memory Joe turned back to the President, “when did you open the third letter?”

Obama turned in his chair and stood up. He walked over towards Joe and put his hand on his shoulder. “I don't really remember when I opened the third letter and it didn't really matter because the third letter was useless, all it said was to write three letters!”

Joe looked a little shocked when Obama told him this. Seeing the shock Obama smiled and walked back over to his desk. He picked up the letters and waved them in the air for Joe to see before dropping them into a drawer.

“Look Joe, we both know that Bush was no where near as smart as I am so I wrote three improved letters. I expanded on the first one to include not just blaming Bush but to include spreading the blame to anyone hired by his administration whether they still work in the government or not. I expanded the second letter to include placing blame not just on Republicans in congress but also those teabaggers and Fox News. All I have to do is blame Fox News and the rest of the media believes it to be true!”

“What about the third letter,” inquired Joe with a nervous tone in his voice?

“Oh that one? I changed it from 'write three letters' to 'buy three envelopes'.”

Politics April 30th, 2009 by Danny Mc Guire

The decision of Republican Senator Arlen Specter to return to the Democratic Party after 28 years as a Republican is the best thing that could have happened for Republicans and the worst for Democrats. What do Democrats get out of this deal that they didn't already have? What do the Republicans really lose? The answer is the same for both questions, nothing.

One of the reasons cited by the Senator for swapping his party affiliation has to do with the polling numbers showing that he would likely not win a Republican primary in his home state. Not wanting to lose his job in the next election he went to the Democrats who offered to let him run as a Democrat in the next election in exchange for his crossing over now.

It has been said that Obama agreed to campaign for him and that he might be allowed to sail through the primary without a serious challenge. Why would Democrats want to do that? What do they gain? Why would they want to take someone into their party who is so quick to change party affiliation when a hard primary approaches? Can you count on such a person?

What did Republicans lose? Many on the right have long wanted Arlen Specter gone from their party. Challenging an incumbent is a hard thing to do. Incumbents traditionally have the support of the national party in the primary on the off chance they are challenged. With Specter running as Democrat the party is free to have a primary with no incumbents running. The state party members get a real chance to elect someone they want as opposed to fighting against the status quo.

I would like to point out the recent case of Senator Joe Lieberman. Joe was targeted by the extreme left wing of his party because he dared to support the Iraq war. Much like Specter he was often seen as a problem by members of his own Democratic party. Lieberman faced a primary challenge in the form of one Ned Lamont. After being defeated in the primary (where only the fringe members vote according to Specter) Lieberman saw all of his long time Senate friends move their backing to the party favorite. Knowing that he had the support of the majority of CT voters he ran as an independent and won.

That's right. Joe Lieberman found himself in nearly the same position Arlen Specter finds himself in right now, facing a tough primary that he may lose. Joe did not give up. He knew the voters would support him so he ran in the general election and he was proven right, defeating both the Democratic and Republican challengers!

What do we learn from Joe? We learn a lesson that Arlen Specter has not learned. We learn that if the people respect and believe in you they will vote for you no matter what party you belong to. Even when your party sends a primary challenge your way that appeals to your parties 'fringe' base and not the electorate at large you can still win. Joe did it.

Politics and Soapbox November 5th, 2008 by Force Drainer

Yes, we voted for this man, Mr. Not-Quite-Prez, Obama. This country does need change and our new prez has been peddling that very thing, but don’t expect your taxes to decrease; it’s very possible they will go up, and sharply.

One of Obama’s projects is health care reform, something this writer holds dear because I work in that field. Universal Health Care is his plan, which is really nothing more than socialized medicine, and anyone who has ever lived in Europe can tell you, this plan doesn’t work. For one, the government pays for it, which means your taxes will increase. Also, the best health care will go to the healthiest people. This is TERRIBLE for Americans, because, let’s face it, we are a very FAT, SICK, AND MENTALLY UNBALANCED NATION. Hey, I could be wrong about all of this, and I hope that I am, but if I am not wrong....ouch! I can’t afford higher taxes, how about you?

So, my advice for you is simple: slim the Hell down, drink your orange juice, and read all the self-help books you can get your fat fingers on.

Force Drainer
Politics October 17th, 2008 by Danny Mc Guire

We've all heard about "Joe the Plumber" by now. The guy out in Ohio who asked Obama about the ramifications of purchasing the plumbing business from his boss.

Obama's answer about "sharing the wealth" allows his opponents to further paint him as a Marxist. Coupled with the Obama campaign's "95% of Americans get a tax cut" (only about two thirds pay income tax) line and we find Obama in a situation where he comes off sounding like a guy who is trying to paint wealth distribution (Marxism) as a tax cut.

Now the rabid dogs on the left are going all out to discredit Joe Wurzelbacher. They point to him having tax liens on his property, not being a licensed plumber and possibly even being related to the Charles H. Keating, Jr. behind the Keating Five Scandel. The one thing they are not doing is discussing what Obama said to the man. (I'd link to these accounts but you can find them all by doing a Google search on your own.)

It does not matter if Joe Wurzelbacher was a plant or not. What matters is the answer Obama gave him. An answer that many are trying to ignore by attacking the questioner. It's as if some people think that discrediting the man who asked the question will somehow remove the question (and its answer) from the political debate.

Further reading:

Did Barack "Spread the Wealth" Obama Just Blow the Election?by James Pethokoukis
Searching for Obama's 95 Percent by Philip Klein

Politics September 22nd, 2008 by Danny Mc Guire

According to data on the National Taxpayers Union Foundation website the top 1% of wage earners in the USA pay about 39.89% of the income taxes collected (I'm using 2006 numbers). These folks have an Adjusted Gross Income of $388,806 or more. The bottom 50% of wage earners who do pay income taxes account just under 3% of the income taxes collected.

I don't know about you but I think I could live very well on $388,806. In fact, that amount is equal to more than four times my annual gross income. If I made $388,806 this year I could keep my present lifestyle intact and not work for the next few years without a single worry about money.

It is important to remember that some wealthy folks do not pay income tax at all. These folks pay Capital Gains taxes instead. Yes, those "amazing" CEOs who say they want a salary of $1 per year while raking in millions on stock options are moving their executive compensation away from the (higher) income tax rate to the (lower) capital gains rate.

Imagine if you will a world where the top 1% are forced to pay an even larger portion of their earned income in taxes. Do you think they will pay more without complaint? We have already seen corporations move their offices off-shore to circumvent corporate taxes so why not individuals?

Unlike the rest of us the top 1% people can easily afford to take a year off or even drop their salary to $1 and work out a stock option pay plan. Those of us who make under $100K per year can survive a few months without an income but not much longer.

So, think for a moment. What would happen if the top 1% decided to "go on strike" against paying income taxes? How would we make up for that 40% in taxes that is not being collected?

Politics November 5th, 2007 by HMTKSteve

I just got the following email from the Ron Paul campaign:

November 5, 2007

What an incredible day to be a supporter of Ron Paul!

You have raised over $2 million so far today, putting us closer to our $12 million fourth quarter goal. This is more than any Republican has ever raised online in one day!

So far in 2008, the biggest day belongs to Mitt Romney. On January 8th, he raised just over $3.1 million. Will you help us beat Mitt Romney and raise more in one day than anyone has this year?

Please ensure Ron Paul's place in the record books with your most generous donation: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate. Tell your friends to donate today, too!

Jonathan Bydlak
Fundraising Director
Ron Paul 2008

Two million dollars on one day for Ron Paul??? That is just amazing considering most of his donations are in small amounts.

Military and Politics October 29th, 2007 by Danny Mc Guire

1. This is not a debate for the anti-war vs pro-war discussion
2. Please try to stay on topic.

One thing that has been bugging me for a while is the anti-war slogan, "support the troops by bringing them home." Let me start off by saying, as a former soldier, no one wants to be in a war zone. No one wants bullets whizzing over their head (better than through your head though) or artillery dropping left and right. However, a soldier's job is to kill people and break things.

When I hear people say, "support the troops by bringing them home," I can't help but think how misguided that statement is. Would you apply the same statement to police officers or fire fighters?

"Hey California fire fighter, those wild fires are real dangerous! I'll support you by telling you to go home and let that fire burn out."

"Hey New York City police officer, it's dangerous on those streets why don't you just hang out in the police station where you will be safe?"

Doesn't have quite the same feel to it does it? It sounds almost parental in the way it gives the impression you lack faith in the person and want to protect them rather than let them do their job.

I don't see how supporting the troops can be anything but arming and feeding them. This whole "support the troops by bringing them home" feels like a backhanded slap in the face to me. When I hear it I can't help but think that the speaker lacks any and all faith in the troops and considers them to be a bunch of kids that need protecting.

Well, am I right or wrong? Please add to the discussion and feel free to bring up other slogans used on both sides of the argument. Slogans only please.

Politics August 1st, 2007 by Danny Mc Guire

What do you do when you are a Democrat and you hear good news coming from Iraq? Why you get depressed...

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

source - Washington Post

When asked about what will happen if Gen Petraeus's September report shows that the surge is working Clyburn responded that it would be bad news for Democrats! I was not able to find a transcript on line so I'm paraphrasing here.

If Gen. David Petraeus delivers a September progress report showing real gains, instead of the mixed report many have expected, it would "be a real big problem for us," Clyburn told The Washington Post.

Why would American success in Iraq be "a real big problem" for Democrats? Oh, yeah. They've already called the war "lost" (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid), have tried seven times this year to end it, and have staked their majority in Congress and their hopes for winning the White House on an American failure there.

source - Union Leader

We have long suspected that the Democrats were invested in "retreat and defeat" but I'm shocked to actualy here one of them admit to it!

"Winning the war on terror may be politically inconvenient for Jim Clyburn, but losing the war on terror is incomprehensible for those who fight and die defending freedom," said Dawson. "Democrats politically invested in U.S. failure have deliberately sought to tie the hands of our troops by denying them resources needed to win in Iraq. The actions of Democrat leaders constitute a breech of public trust and disregard for our safety and security."

source - Campaigns and Elections

I'm glad Clyburn has come clean on this. Any bets that this story gets buried by the main stream media?

If you read the Washinton Post article alone (not watch the video or hear the audio) you might not think that there is much of a story here. The true weight of this story is what is in the audio recording. That is where Clyburn admits that what is good for America (winning in Iraq) is not good for Democrats.

It's time for many Democrats to look at the party that they belong to and look who is in control of that party. Do these people have the best interests of you and America in mind or only there own? I gladly support politicians who put America above their own personal ambitions, do you?

Anyone who sees victory in Iraq as a bad thing should not be in the United States Federal government.

-- Danny Mc Guire

Next Page »


  Computer and Video Game Blogs -  Blog Catalog Blog Directory

58 queries. 0.172 seconds.