Signs O’ The Apocalypse

Borrowing a phrase from Michael Stickings, some stories indicate serious trouble ahead.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Arab leaders on Wednesday that the American occupation of Iraq is “illegal,” and he warned that unless Arab governments settle their differences, foreign powers like the United States would continue to dictate the region’s politics.

The king’s speech, at the opening of the Arab League summit meeting here, underscored growing differences between Saudi Arabia and the Bush administration as the Saudis take on a greater regional leadership role, partly at American urging. The Saudis seem to be emphasizing that they will not be beholden to the policies of their longtime ally.

Oy. Less than six months ago the Saudi King read Dick Cheney the riot act when word got around that we might leave Iraq. King Abdullah was understandably concerned that our pullout would leave Saudi Arabia’s Sunni leadership with a hell of a job supporting Iraq’s Sunni minority and managing the inevitable rise of Iran as the dominant regional power. Better from their perspective to have Americans spending our lives on a peace rather than whatever bloody mess the alternative might be. Then there’s the oil relationship.

Maybe the Sauds want some cheap Arab street cred. Sadly, now more than ever that specifically means trashing America and Israel. Neocons should be especially proud of that factoid since legitimizing the US and Israel through intimidation and naked force sat at the vital center of the neoconservatives’ demented strategy. Now, thanks entirely to our own addled leadership, the faintest sign of aligning with the US or Israel is more toxic than ever.

Worse, the idea that the Sauds meant to burnish their street cred by trashing us might be the least troubling interpretation. Think about the significance if King Abdullah meant what he said.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






142 replies
  1. 1
    Darrell says:

    When a ‘forward thinking’ country like Saudi Arabia, which routinely brutalizes foreign workers in racist fashion and denies women even the right to drive.. when they criticize us, according to Tim’s hairbrained “logic” that’s a bad thing. Most thinking people with a moral compass know better.

    Again, Tim is lending credence to a dictator in a country which does not permit free elections or freedom of press, where homosexuality is punishable by death. The word “idiocy” seems to be an understatement here.

  2. 2
    jake says:

    And Cheney will go scuttling to Saudi Arabia in 5…4…3…

    Do you think Dick shines the king’s Guccis with a hand brush, or is he allowed to use a motorized device?

  3. 3
    jake says:

    p.s. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

  4. 4
    Tim F. says:

    Darrell, you’re an idealist. Don’t get me wrong. I find that charming. But idealism is also totally useless for dealing with the world as it actually exists.

  5. 5

    I agree, Darrell. It’s time we start a crash alternative energy program.

  6. 6

    When a ‘forward thinking’ country like Saudi Arabia, which routinely brutalizes foreign workers in racist fashion and denies women even the right to drive.. when they criticize us, according to Tim’s hairbrained “logic” that’s a bad thing. Most thinking people with a moral compass know better.

    Yet, when they show support for Bush, you think that’s a good thing.

    Frankly, my position is WHY THE FUCK ARE WE DEFENDING THESE PEOPLE!?

    Saudi is full of money, they have tanks, jets, everything. I say we let them defend themselves.

    Same with South Korea, Japan and Germany. The US needs to take a big step back. Maintain the foreign bases necessary for rapid deployment, but we need to stop spending our fucking money defending wealthy countries who could and probably should defend themselves.

    And I already know your answer… “Oh, but think of the children.” Whatever you bleeding fucking heart.

  7. 7

    Darrell, you’re an idealist. Don’t get me wrong. I find that charming. But idealism is also totally useless for dealing with the world as it actually exists.

    Darrell’s not an Idealist. He’s an opportunist.

    Darrell doesn’t care about human rights. He supports torture for christ sake. He only uses those issues when it suits him politically.

    What we’re all still trying to figure out, is why? Why would he put up with ineptitude, corruption, incompetence, wasted money, wasted lives, a total destruction of the American way of life.

    What does he think he has to gain?

  8. 8
    Rudi says:

    I love how the neocons and warhawks get a woody over the supposed alliance between the US-Israel-Saudis Arabia against the evil Persians. Maybe Cheney and W have pissed off the ‘moderate’ Arabs and they are going to take matters in thier own hands. Maybe the ‘moderate’ Sunnis realize that Condo Rice and W have no clue, they’re trying to save the region from the mess that W has created.

  9. 9

    Incompetent Bush n00bs lose easy tax cheat case that would have netted government $100 million because they cited the wrong statute.

    here

    Of course Darrell thinks this is ok, because it’s not Clinton.

  10. 10
    Darrell, D'Souza, Delay and Strauss says:

    Darrell has always been consistent. His moral compass never wavers. He was speaking truth to power back when Saddam was gasing the Kurds. But not so much when he was gasing the Iranians at the same time. That would be inconsistent.

  11. 11
    Pb says:

    He supports torture for christ sake.

    Don’t look now, but I don’t think Christ was too happy about it…

  12. 12
    Tulkinghorn says:

    The Saudis seem to be emphasizing that they will not be beholden to the policies balls of their longtime ally.

    The NYTimes editors must be asleep at the switch.

  13. 13
    jake says:

    Perhaps the Saudis think we have cooties.

    I also wonder if their tone would soften if there weren’t quite so many military vessles bobbing around the area.

    Am I suggesting we might unintentionally be interfering with government approved smuggling operations?

    Mmmmaybe.

  14. 14

    Break-ups are always hard. I think maybe things started to go downhill when the gay marriage debate heated up back in 2004.

  15. 15

    This one’s even racier.

    Just kiss him! You may never get this chance again!

  16. 16
    28 Percent says:

    It is true Darrell it does not matter whether they are our allies in war or not the Saudis are morally bad. It is like the Soviets in WWII they were our allies during the war but as soon as the war was over we were enemies again and that was very confusing for some people. Some Americans who were good before became communists because they thought it was ok because FDR was friendly with the Russians. It is important to remember that government has a RESPONSIBILITY to be MORALLY GOOD which is why Clinton’s bl*wj*bs were so bad for the country and just like the way liberals LOVE Saudi Arabia and are warning that we might lose them as an ally (who wants them if they aren’t loyal to the president anyway?) now that the Saudis have BDS, even though just a few months ago they were criticizing the Saudis when Bush was holding hands with them. Who can keep track of all the hypocrisy? I ask you I do not know.

  17. 17
    Darrell says:

    It is true Darrell it does not matter whether they are our allies in war or not the Saudis are morally bad. It is like the Soviets in WWII they were our allies during the war but as soon as the war was over we were enemies again and that was very confusing for some people. Some Americans who were good before became communists because they thought it was ok because FDR was friendly with the Russians

    Nothing “confusing” at all to most people that we had to ally ourselves with a monster like Stalin to defeat a greater threat at that time, Nazi Germany.

    And once the WWII was over and the cold war begin, liberals proceeded to deny, excuse, and minimize the atrocities of the Soviets, including going apeshit when Reagan challenged them.. That’s because the left knows a real fascist when they see one, and that’s George Bush.

  18. 18
    Perry Como says:

    Is Saudi Arabia no longer our BFF?

  19. 19
    ThymeZone says:

    When a ‘forward thinking’ country like Saudi Arabia, whose royal family funds an alcoholic son of an American president’s useless oil ventures, and expects to be regularly sodomized by the whole Bush family ….

    Darrell just needs a little help now and then with his choice of facts.

    The United States has been going down on the Saudis for a long time. Who really knows how much of our failed and completely dysfunctional Middle East policy history is directly traceable to our corrupt relationship with these nasty ragheads? The Bushes have been right there in the vanguard, sucking the cocks of these Arab pustules for who knows how long and at what cost?

    Thanks, Darrell, for helping to expose this outrage.

    Don’t forget to send your tithe to the Save Alberto Gonzales Defense Fund this week when you get your Blockbuster paycheck, okay?

  20. 20
    Zifnab says:

    What does he think he has to gain?

    Who knows? I’ve got a few Republican friends who are throughly convinced everything Bush has done has been for the public good. If Bush didn’t invade Iraq, the civil war would have broken out over here. If he hadn’t acted quickly to not catch Osama bin Laden and make a giant joke out of airport security, we’d see a hundred million more 9/11s.

    And if you’re making over $300,000/year then Bush pays you big bling via tax cuts to keep supporting him as blindly as you please. If someone paid me ten or fifteen thousand dollars to parrot the company line randomly in servile support, I can’t say I wouldn’t be tempted.

    And, of course, if Bush thinks the bullshit he’s saying is true – and there’s some serious doubt over whether this administration is the greatest team of co-artists in US History or really and truely as dumb as they appear – then I have no problem believing a number of people who aren’t President can swallow the guff Bush Co. is selling.

    There’s a reason 25% of the population still doggedly supports Bush. It’s a dumb reason, but it exists.

  21. 21
    mrmobi says:

    That’s because the left knows a real fascist when they see one, and that’s George Bush.

    DING DING DING DING! You are correct, Gruppenfuhrer! For once, I actually agree with you!

    28 Percent, you are fast becoming my favorite spoofer here, even approaching the high regard I have for BIRDZILLA (who may in fact be the Supreme Being of Spoofers). Your work is mostly incoherent, but you need to work on more random, and incorrect, punctuation. Typing with your feet will help.

    Please do keep mentioning the nation-destroying Clinton blowjob in every post, that just doesn’t get old, and it had the side benefit of creating a legion of spoofers who provide valued entertainment for those of us who are still able to actually use our minds.

    In these difficult times, as we watch our democracy being undermined by thieves, liars and pretend ranchers, it helps to be able to laugh at retarded right-wingers. From the bottom of my (admittedly black) heart, thanks!

  22. 22
    mrmobi says:

    And if you’re making over $300,000/year then Bush pays you big bling via tax cuts to keep supporting him as blindly as you please. If someone paid me ten or fifteen thousand dollars to parrot the company line randomly in servile support, I can’t say I wouldn’t be tempted.

    I appreciate your honesty, Zif. What I wonder, is if you or I actually made over $300,000/year, would ten or fifteen thousand dollars be enough to make us sell our souls?

    I sure hope not. I’m also pretty sure I’ll never find out.

  23. 23
    Zifnab says:

    I appreciate your honesty, Zif. What I wonder, is if you or I actually made over $300,000/year, would ten or fifteen thousand dollars be enough to make us sell our souls?

    See, that’s what is truly baffling about the Republican Party. Destroy your own national economy for a few grand in tax breaks?

    Again, I acknowledge there are reasons, I just haven’t found any good reasons yet.

  24. 24
    grumpy realist says:

    You’d think that if you were going to sell your soul to the Devil, you’d at least hold out for something with a wet bar….

    (Kudos to anyone who catches the reference.)

  25. 25
    Tsulagi says:

    What can you say that hasn’t already been said? Just more evidence/examples that the moronarchy has been in way, way, WAY over its head since sometime in late Jan. 01. Other than the 28%ers, no one on the planet takes these idiots seriously anymore.

    Most will be happy to see them go. Some, though, like leaders in Iran, China, North Korea, and Russia will miss them. Oh, and also big Republican campaign contributors. They’ve gotten a hell of a rate of return on investment. We’ve got a lot to show for that extra $2 TRILLION in debt since the Bushies came to town.

  26. 26
    ThymeZone says:

    OMFG, you guys have to read this.

    Again, I have to peel my jaw off the floor.

    I need to get out more, I had no idea.

    His and Tony Blair’s Iraq war has provided “excellent value for money” to the taxpayer. That Bush has brought “full democracy” to Iraq is stated as unequivocal fact.

    We are just way fucked by these people.

  27. 27
    Moll Slanders says:

    President Bush is sometimes a boastful anti-intellectual, but in the past year he has been touting his reading lists and engaging in who-can-read-more contests with his chief political adviser, Karl Rove. (Bush claimed to have read 60 books in just the first seven and a half months of last year, the pace of a full-time reviewer.) There even seems to be a White House book club.

    When does he have time for presidenting?

  28. 28
    mrmobi says:

    So the faux rancher has gotten hisself an historian!
    Clearly, he needs one, but this guy seems to kind of…. suck!

    Roberts is as sloppy as he is snobbish. I am seldom bothered by minor errors from a good writer, but Roberts’ mistakes are so extensive, foolish, and revealing of his basic ignorance about the United States in particular, that it may be worth noting a few of those I caught in a fast read. The San Francisco earthquake did considerably more than $400,000 in damage. Virginia Woolf, who drowned herself in 1941, did not write for Encounter, which began publication in 1953. The Proposition 13 Tax Revolt took place in the 1970s, not the 1980s—an important distinction because it presaged Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980. Michael Milken was not a “takeover arbitrageur,” whatever that is. Roberts cannot know that there were 500 registered lobbyists in Washington during World War II because lobbyists weren’t forced to register until 1946. Gregg Easterbrook is not the editor of the New Republic. “No man gets left behind” is a line from the film Black Hawk Down, not the motto of the U.S. Army Rangers; their actual motto is “Rangers Lead the Way.” In a breathtaking peroration, Roberts point out that “as a proportion of the total number of Americans, only 0.008 percent died bringing democracy to important parts of the Middle East in 2003-5.” Leaving aside the question of whether those deaths have brought anything like democracy to Iraq, 0.008 percent of 300 million people is 24,000—off by a factor of 10, which is typical of his arithmetic. If you looked closely enough, I expect you could find an error of one kind or another on every page of the book.

    I think I smell a Presidential Medal of Freedom!

  29. 29
    mrmobi says:

    When does he have time for presidenting?

    Umm, he doesn’t.

  30. 30
    Moll Slanders says:

    In a breathtaking peroration, Roberts point out that “as a proportion of the total number of Americans, only 0.008 percent died bringing democracy to important parts of the Middle East in 2003-5.” Leaving aside the question of whether those deaths have brought anything like democracy to Iraq, 0.008 percent of 300 million people is 24,000—off by a factor of 10, which is typical of his arithmetic.

    I wonder, at the moment of death for each of these brave soldiers, did they feel like just a number?

  31. 31
    28 Percent says:

    28 Percent, you are fast becoming my favorite spoofer here… your work is mostly incoherent, but you need to work on more random, and incorrect, punctuation. Typing with your feet will help.

    Thank you it is hard sometimes too go back through a post and mix up homynyms and remove punctuation and other stuff. With degrees in eng. lit. sometime is makeing me wince while I type but is that bad? truly I do not know. Not more than seeing “spoofing” confused with “satire” but that is how things are I guess some people do not learn.

  32. 32
    ThymeZone says:

    28%, you are turning out consistently top-grade material. Our little suggestions are just aimed at helping you polish the act. It’s good. Very good.

    Keep up the good work.

  33. 33
    Moll Slanders says:

    Umm, he doesn’t.

    So let me get this straight… we (you and me, all of us American people) are paying him a Presidential Salary, so he can go to sleep in the White House, act important in front of dignitarys and read a bunch of books? What is this, an effing eight year summer vacation?

  34. 34
    ThymeZone says:

    What is this, an effing eight year summer vacation?

    Yes. I’m pretty sure his memoirs will refer to it as his “excellent adventure.”

  35. 35
    mrmobi says:

    Yes. I’m pretty sure his memoirs will refer to it as his “excellent adventure.”

    I have to say this. Dude!

  36. 36
    The Other Steve says:

    Nothing “confusing” at all to most people that we had to ally ourselves with a monster like Stalin to defeat a greater threat at that time, Nazi Germany.

    Now if Clinton had said that, Darrell would have argued against it.

    As I said… opportunist, not idealist.

  37. 37
    ThymeZone says:

    So let me get this straight… we (you and me, all of us American people) are paying him a Presidential Salary, so he can act important in the White House, go to sleep in front of dignitarys and have a bunch of books read to him?

    I’m just tweaking it a little …..

    It works fine either way, really.

  38. 38
    ThymeZone says:

    Nothing “confusing” at all to most people that we had to ally ourselves with a monster like Stalin to defeat a greater threat at that time, Nazi Germany.

    Then we turn right around and ally ourselves with Saddam, the “recincarnation of Hitler” according to Bush the Elder, and later turn on him so as to liberate the repressive oligarchy of Kuwait.

    And then let him off the hook. And then declare war on him again to get rid of WMDs that weren’t there after all, and then once we get rid of him, decide that we have to stay in Iraq for fucking ever because we can’t figure out how to get the hell out of there, on account of it didn’t magically turn into the first real Arab democracy in history, which nothing in history would have indicated was even possible in the first fucking place.

    Confusing? Heh. Yeah, a little.

  39. 39
    Moll Slanders says:

    I’m just tweaking it a little …..

    It works fine either way, really.

    That’s okay, I expect embellishment.

  40. 40
    Zifnab says:

    Leaving aside the question of whether those deaths have brought anything like democracy to Iraq, 0.008 percent of 300 million people is 24,000

    Proving that one American soldier as strong and capable as ten normal men. Anyone who would argue with this clearly hates our troops.

  41. 41
    ThymeZone says:

    That’s okay, I expect embellishment.

    You mean, from me?

    Well, that’s fair. When I really get right down to it, I like to embellish, to enhance the experience. Give a little extra.

  42. 42
    Moll Slanders says:

    You mean, from me?

    From anyone… what, do you think you’re special or something?

  43. 43
    ThymeZone says:

    Anyone who would argue with this clearly hates our troops.

    Well, that, or just really like normal men.

    Like Darrell, say. Would, I mean. Like normal men.

    If he could get one.

  44. 44
    ThymeZone says:

    what, do you think you’re special or something?

    I told you: I think I’m boring.

    Wait, I mean, “I think I’m bowling.”

    Sorry.

  45. 45
    Chad N. Freude says:

    sucking the cocks of these Arab pustules

    Now there’s an image! Pustules!! I’ll have nightmares for the rest of my life.

  46. 46
    Chad N. Freude says:

    What is this, an effing eight year summer vacation?

    Of course it is. Little Georgie and his buddies gather around the campfire every evening to sing camp songs and toast US attorneys over a bonfire. And at night he sneaks over to Laura’s side of the lake, giggling like mad. And George HW and Babs drive down every Parents’ Day. And the best part is there’s almost two more years of summer left.

  47. 47
    Moll Slanders says:

    Wait, I mean, “I think I’m bowling.”

    You’re left with a 7-10 split.

  48. 48
    tBone says:

    If he could get one.

    We need a saucy “Boy Scout Leader tying knots” photo, stat!

  49. 49
    Moll Slanders says:

    And the best part is there’s almost two more years of summer left.

    Please, don’t remind me.

  50. 50
    ThymeZone says:

    You’re left with a 7-10 split.

    My two-finger ball takes care of that every time.

  51. 51
    Jake says:

    Clearly, he needs one, but this guy seems to kind of…. suck!

    Which is why he’s sure to get the job. And th’ medal uh freedum.

  52. 52
    ThymeZone says:

    Hey, what happened to that Darrell guy?

    I hope our homoerotic code messages didn’t scare him away!

  53. 53
    Moll Slanders says:

    I hope our homoerotic code messages didn’t scare him away!

    Possibly, isn’t that why we’re doing this?

  54. 54
    ThymeZone says:

    Possibly, isn’t that why we’re doing this?

    Shhhh ….. Darrell might be listening. He has (so I’ve heard) really big ears.

    Basically, like a hare.

    In fact, he’s a wild hare.

  55. 55
    Chad N. Freude says:

    We seem to have gone a bit off-topic. This was originally about King Abdullah, loyal friend to the Bush family, protector of America’s oil supply, and promoter of the freedom that George Bush holds so dear. So my question is what effect will this pronouncement by our ally have on our helping the poor, benighted Iraqis achieve a democracy? Will it diminish the risk of our having to fight “them” over here? Will it help stabilize the entire Middle East? All opinions are welcome, although we have to remember to watch what we say in this time of national peril.

  56. 56
    Moll Slanders says:

    In fact, he’s a wild hare.

    I thought he HAD A wild hair (and in a rather inconvenient place), not that he was one.

  57. 57
    Moll Slanders says:

    hare, not hair… non-editable posts strikes again!

  58. 58
    tBone says:

    We seem to have gone a bit off-topic.

    You must be new here.

    Will it diminish the risk of our having to fight “them” over here? Will it help stabilize the entire Middle East?

    Not only will it help stabilize the entire Middle East, it will exponentially increase the world pony supply.

  59. 59
    ThymeZone says:

    All opinions are welcome, although we have to remember to watch what we say in this time of national peril.

    That’s right. Freedom is fine and dandy but NOT when it gives aid and comfort to the enema.

    I mean, aids to the enemy.

    I mean, Ayds to the enigma.

    Aw, fuck. You know what I meant.

  60. 60
    ThymeZone says:

    We seem to have gone a bit off-topic.

    It keeps the Darrells away, amigo. Out-threadjack the threadjackaloper.

    So, where is the Houston Homophobe now?

  61. 61
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    What is this, an effing eight year summer vacation?

    Hey, Bush didn’t get where is today by not being on permanent vacation.

  62. 62
    Moll Slanders says:

    We seem to have gone a bit off-topic. This was originally about King Abdullah, loyal friend to the Bush family, protector of America’s oil supply, and promoter of the freedom that George Bush holds so dear. So my question is what effect will this pronouncement by our ally have on our helping the poor, benighted Iraqis achieve a democracy? Will it diminish the risk of our having to fight “them” over here? Will it help stabilize the entire Middle East? All opinions are welcome, although we have to remember to watch what we say in this time of national peril.

    It’s the Middle East, it has always been chaotic, it will always be chaotic, we can’t change it. It’s a melting pot of zeolotry and very different social practices, and we should stop trying to turn them into “us” and just let them be. That, as I see it, will be the only way to create the most peace in the region.

  63. 63
    ThymeZone says:

    That, as I see it, will be the only way to create the most peace in the region.

    That, plus dropping our absurd, juvenile, bellicose posturing and also our completely un-American groveling before the altar of unexamined support for Israel and its parade of fuckhead governments.

  64. 64
    Moll Slanders says:

    That, plus dropping our absurd, juvenile, bellicose posturing and also our completely un-American groveling before the altar of unexamined support for Israel and its parade of fuckhead governments.

    Yeah, that too… who would have thought that a book that has been the cause of so many crusades, deaths, wars, etc… would be the reason we align with Israel because some crazed lunatic over 2,000 years ago wrote that any country that aligns with Israel would have God’s favor. Yeah, right!

  65. 65
    Chad N. Freude says:

    we should stop trying to turn them into “us”

    You’re right. We must merge our respective heritages. We provide the Jeffersonian Democracy, and they provide the Mohamedan Theocracy, and the world achieves perfect peace.

  66. 66
    ThymeZone says:

    We provide the Jeffersonian Democracy, and they provide the Mohamedan Theocracy, and the world achieves perfect peace.

    There it is! Jeffersonian Mohamedanism.

    By Jove, I think we’ve got it!

  67. 67
    Chad N. Freude says:

    Moll –
    The policies of the modern Israeli government are not biblically inspired. Only Americans like Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, etc. claim biblical justification for supporting Israel (and it’s not the same bible the Israelis would use).

  68. 68
    Moll Slanders says:

    I never said the politices of modern Israeli governemnt were biblically inspired. What I was getting at is that the reason regular thinking Americans believe we support Israel is to stay in God’s good favor because “the Bible tells them so”.

  69. 69
    Moll Slanders says:

    policies, not whatever that abomination was that I wrote there, sorry.

  70. 70
    Chad N. Freude says:

    I misunderstood what you wrote. Sorry.

  71. 71
    ThymeZone says:

    because “the Bible tells them so”.

    Ah yes …

    Jesus loves me, this I know
    Cause the Bible tells me so.

    Sang it in Bible class. Thing is, the song had a reverse effect on me. I looked at the cockamamie stories in the Bible and said, why the fuck would I believe anything out that book? What a crock.

    I was eight at the time, so ….

  72. 72
    Moll Slanders says:

    Sang it in Bible class. Thing is, the song had a reverse effect on me. I looked at the cockamamie stories in the Bible and said, why the fuck would I believe anything out that book? What a crock.

    There are more lies in the Good Book than there are in any single back issue of Penthouse Forum magazine.

  73. 73
    ThymeZone says:

    There are more lies in the Good Book than there are in any single back issue of Penthouse Forum magazine.

    I threw all those away. Honest.

    (In truth, I have never read the magazine. I tend more toward Popular Mechanics ……)

  74. 74
    Moll Slanders says:

    Well, at least you’re smart enough (apparenltly) to realize Forum was purchased to be read, not gawked at. No real pics in Forum, just very off the wall stories of tawdry sex.

  75. 75
    ThymeZone says:

    No real pics in Forum, just very off the wall stories of tawdry sex.

    Well, color me boring. I have no real interest in other peoples’ sex.

  76. 76
    Moll Slanders says:

    That’s the point TZ, most of what was written was lies, you just knew it was. The craziest things would be written, and you knew people couldn’t get away with half of it in real life. It was lies about tawdry sex, not actual tawdry sex.

  77. 77
    ThymeZone says:

    It was lies about tawdry sex, not actual tawdry sex.

    Well, I am more boring than you thought! Even if every word of it were true, I wouldn’t be very interested.

    I have managed to learn to prepare and enjoy really good food without reading about how other people eat and chew and swallow. I always thought I should just trust my instincts.

  78. 78
    mrmobi says:

    I see that the Iranians have decided, because of the “Bad Behavior” of the Brits, to keep the female hostage.

    All issues about whether the Brits were or were not in Iranian waters, I know I’m going to react irrationally over this. I just saw a picture of the hostages, and the woman is wearing an Arab scarf!

    So let me get this straight. You get taken hostage, and then you have to live by the rules of people who chop off the hands of thieves and execute gays. Just. Fucking. Great.

    I’m so very glad that our nitwit in chief is not concerned about a real energy policy. It is so important to be able to drive fuck-you-mobiles, as opposed to not being dependent on savages for oil.

  79. 79
    Moll Slanders says:

    Well, I am more boring than you thought!

    That’s funny. I was never under the impression this conversation was about you or how boring you might be, or what you do or do not like… I thought we had turned it towards the number of lies in the Good Book, hello?

  80. 80
    ThymeZone says:

    I was never under the impression this conversation was about you

    Well, it has spun out of control ………

    :)

  81. 81
    Moll Slanders says:

    I’m so very glad that our nitwit in chief is not concerned about a real energy policy. It is so important to be able to drive fuck-you-mobiles, as opposed to not being dependent on savages for oil.

    Well, without oil, so many people would be so much less rich!

  82. 82
    ThymeZone says:

    It is so important to be able to drive fuck-you-mobiles, as opposed to not being dependent on savages for oil.

    Conservation is for sissies.

  83. 83
    mrmobi says:

    Where the fuck are “two-in-the-brainpan” Lambchop, Dick23, 28% and Mein Gruppenfuhrer when you need them?

  84. 84
    Moll Slanders says:

    28% percent is preaching on the open thread… care to make him stop?

  85. 85
    28 Percent says:

    I’m so very glad that our nitwit in chief is not concerned about a real energy policy. It is so important to be able to drive fuck-you-mobiles, as opposed to not being dependent on savages for oil.

    It is no surprise you LIBERALS are RACIST because all you can do is HATE. No wonder you do not want to fight the bad guys in the middle east and bring democracy there you do not love the good people who live there.

    Have you tried exercise? It is good for the body, mind AND SOUL!

  86. 86
    Chad N. Freude says:

    bring democracy there

    whether they want it or not. We’re going to force self-determination on them come hell or high water.

  87. 87
    Chad N. Freude says:

    hell or high water

    both of which seem imminent.

  88. 88
    Perry Como says:

    I have no real interest in other peoples’ sex.

    Why do you hate Scout Leaders?

  89. 89
    28 Percent says:

    We’re going to force self-determination on them come hell or high water.

    Yes, because it is not being able to choose for themselves especially to choose a religion that is not the “religion of peace” lol that is making them turn to terrorism. They need help to make choices that are better so that is where we come in. They were not safe to make there own choices before and that made us less safe too. Now they would be safer if they were not so hateful and being safer makes them freer, and them being freer makes us safer and freer too. I do not see why this is so hard for you to understand it makes sense to David Brooks and he is a well known liberal.

  90. 90
    Chad N. Freude says:

    David Brooks is a self-important blowhard who, in spite of what Michael Kinsley may think, doesn’t have a single liberal brain cell. (Or am I confusing him with David Frum, the other self-important blowhard who doesn’t have a liberal etc.?)

    So tell me, 28 (I hope addressing you by your first name isn’t too presumptuous), do you really subscribe to Times Select? Hmmm.

  91. 91
    ImJohnGalt says:

    I appreciate your honesty, Zif. What I wonder, is if you or I actually made over $300,000/year, would ten or fifteen thousand dollars be enough to make us sell our souls?

    As someone who is there, let me say unequivocally, “No.” Even though I was the first in my family to go to university (by which I mean I do not come from money), I built a company from scratch that now employs 20 people in Toronto. While we may not be big enough to count as “corporate America/Canada”, I do fall into your salary category.

    I’m a dual American/Canadian (born in Canada, married an American and became naturalized) which means I have to pay US taxes regardless of where I am.

    I do not begrudge one cent of taxes I pay, to either the US or the Canadian governments. I recognize that taxes are necessary to the proper functioning of government, and accept that my good fortune (even if earned) should help to mitigate the misery of those less advantaged.

    Actually, that’s not true. I don’t mind paying Canadian taxes because my money goes to ensure that even the homeless have pretty good health care. I hate that my US taxes are going to pay for this criminal war in the US, but understand that if I got further tax cuts, future generations would find it even harder to pay for. I would be totally okay with revoking the tax cuts from which I have benefited rather than making them permanent.

    There are many other of the “liberal elites” (at least among my sample of friends in a similar economic situation) that don’t begrudge the government their taxes, but would prefer that they spend a little less of it on killing foreign people, and a little more on either saving foreign people (see: Darfur, *real* AIDS assistance), or helping the poor in our own country.

    Either you recognize how fortunate you are and understand your responsibility to those less fortunate or you don’t. You either think “fuck you, I’ve got mine”, or you think “if one of us suffers, we all suffer a little”. It’s compassion, integrity and good citizenship.

    Oh, and I’m an atheist, so fuck anyone who says you have to believe in an imaginary sky fairy to do what’s right or have compassion for your fellow man.

  92. 92
    Chad N. Freude says:

    Yes, because it is not being able to choose for themselves especially to choose a religion that is not the “religion of peace” lol that is making them turn to terrorism. They need help to make choices that are better so that is where we come in. They were not safe to make there own choices before and that made us less safe too.

    Compelling logic, the same logic that made the Crusades so successful. Is the world so asymmetric that “we” are right to impose our systems on “them”, but “they” are wrong to try to do it to “us”?

  93. 93
    Chad N. Freude says:

    ImJohnGalt –

    Well said and beautifully written. How do you reconcile what you say here with your choice of screen name?

  94. 94
    mrmobi says:

    It is no surprise you LIBERALS are RACIST because all you can do is HATE. No wonder you do not want to fight the bad guys in the middle east and bring democracy there you do not love the good people who live there.

    I’d like, most of all, to start bringing democracy (not demonocracy) to the people here, but you do make a good point. Iran is actually one of the most secular and least naturally anti-american countries in that region. The Persian culture is among the world’s oldest.

    In the absence of a foreign policy more sophisticated than nuking them from orbit, however, we have a very good chance of turning them into… you guessed it, Iraqis!
    As far as HATING and being RACIST. Well, I do have a kind of knee-jerk reaction to the forcing of western women (even hostages) to wearing head-coverings and such. Their attitude towards women is one of the things that is so foreign to the American notion of equality (except in the far-right Christianist sects, like the one you belong to).

    I dont’ know if you remember, but when we helped liberate Kuwait, our female soldiers had to wear headscarves and were not allowed to drive, when they were off the base. To me, that is like saying, “Thank you very, very much, now go fuck yourself.”

    If the frat-boy in chief had allowed us to have an intelligent energy policy, we might be able to say, in response, “we’ve just cut our energy needs by 50%, have a nice day.”

    Nice use of capital letters, by the way.

  95. 95
    mrmobi says:

    Oh, and I’m an atheist, so fuck anyone who says you have to believe in an imaginary sky fairy to do what’s right or have compassion for your fellow man.

    Amen, ImJohnGalt, and well said.

  96. 96
    mrmobi says:

    So, Toronto is the secret hiding place called Galt’s Gulch. Who knew?

    Now I don’t want to start another “my birthday is in April, too” scene here, but my wife is Canadian and I’m from Chicago…

  97. 97
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Well said and beautifully written. How do you reconcile what you say here with your choice of screen name?

    Quite frankly, I don’t. There are a few themes in Atlas Shrugged with which I am sympathetic, mostly only those pertaining to personal responsibility. When I read it in high school I enjoyed it despite the craptacular writing. I’ve never considered it a manifesto for life (objectivism is for the most part pretty much as practical as Scientology).

    So, consider it an ironic response to the “Who is John Galt” from the book and nothing else.

  98. 98
    28 Percent says:

    mrmobi the next time you accuse (see I can spell it right but I guess you never make typos huh?) religios people of your great “sin” intolerance I suggest you take a good LOOK IN THE MIRROR because you do not seem to like it if ANYBODY ELSE lives different from you. Maybe you say that this is the case with Christian people but at least we are trying to offer you a better life and salvation after but what do you offer? Nothing. You do not know the meaning of sacrifice or devotion it is no part of your life. And you try to destroy the “way of life” of people who do know that there is more to this BEAUTIFUL LIFE than SELFISHNESS and MATERIALISM and SENSUALITY. But spirituality is something liberals only like when it is in “oppressed people” like American Indians or Tibet then it is cool to you but when it is your neighbor who believes in God you make fun of the “sky fairy.” It makes me so mad. You have double standards too because nobody is supposed to say anything about your Cl*nis now because it is “old news” but the Crusades and Inquisition are always fair game aren’t they?

    It is time to ask your self some tough questions mrmobi. It is never too late.

  99. 99
    searp says:

    I hold no brief for the Saudis, but I think the change is based on a simple fact: the current Iraqi government is a Shia sectarian government, and our current path in Iraq will result in suppression of the Sunnis. The Sauds must have decided that this is witting on our part, so that we are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    At any rate, the Sauds are certainly not alone. I imagine the prospect of more Iraqi Sunni refugees doesn’t exactly make Jordan or Syria happy.

  100. 100
    Darrell says:

    And if you’re making over $300,000/year then Bush pays you big bling via tax cuts to keep supporting him as blindly as you please

    That comment is typical of the extreme ignorance so prevalent on the left. At that income level, you’d be paying the top tax rate (actually, at $300k you’d pay 33%, going up to max 35% rate at $335k).. Besides paying more taxes, you would have your mortgage deduction and other itemized deductions whittled away.

    Top 5% of income earners in this country pay 54% of all taxes, while typically using few government services compared to lower income levels. Then after paying all those taxes for so many years, after death, they get taxed again on those “after-tax” dollars with estate taxes.

    It’s not a matter of “fuck you I’ve got mine”, as high earners pay the lion’s share of taxes in this country. The issue is, enough is enough on the taxes.

  101. 101
    Zifnab says:

    Top 5% of income earners in this country pay 54% of all taxes, while typically using few government services compared to lower income levels.

    Ok, I’ll bite. You’re going to have to explain this to me a bit better, Darrell.

    Currently we spend 25% of our budget on the military. Then another 20% goes to the interest on the national debt. Another 20% goes to healthcare. That’s 65% of the budget right off the bat that I can assure you benefits the top 5% income braket much more than the bottom 50%.

    http://www.results.org/website/image.asp?id=1010

    A national military is much more valuable to Trump Tower than it is to Tim’s house in Queens. And the 1.2% to Medicare (which insures all your workers with you needing to buy them insurance yourself) benefits the company owner for every extra person he employs. Finally, making sure the government doesn’t go backrupt (and sending the dollar down the path of the liera), is substantially more beneficial to the guy with millions of dollars than to the guy making the average $50k/yr.

    So how, exactly, does the poor person benefit more from paying taxes than the rich person?

  102. 102
    Moll Slanders says:

    Is the world so asymmetric that “we” are right to impose our systems on “them”, but “they” are wrong to try to do it to “us”?

    Yes, apparently, it is (not that that’s a good thing).

  103. 103
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Top 5% of income earners in this country pay 54% of all taxes

    I don’t understand, though. Why is this relevant?

    “How much overall income does that 5% represent”, is a far more interesting question to me. By the way, I’ll be wanting you to include capital gains and dividend income on that, and then have you tell me how much tax they pay as a percentage of the *overall* income. It’d be nice if you could include sheltered income as well, but chances are a lot of it just disappears [I *know* it does – we have a private banker looking after our finances, and the fucking unbelievable horror stories he tells (well, he doesn’t think they’re horror stories) make me ill].

    That’d be a number I’d be more interested in seeing.

  104. 104
    Moll Slanders says:

    as high earners pay the lion’s share of taxes in this country

    Sorry to burst your bubble, Darrell, but if you were to divide out the amount of taxes a poor person pays, compared to their rich counterpart, the poor person would suffer MORE from the smaller share taken. The poor person still has to put food on the table, still has to afford clothing and medicine and all the things that go into making a household for whatever number reside in that household, including children. The rich counterpart has a lot more indiscretionary funds to spend on those needs and can still afford much more afterwards.

    When you compare the percentage of taxes taken from a poor person’s take home pay, they amount to a much bigger chunk missing than that of a rich person.

    I’ve never been rich myself, although I had rich family. I’ve seen both sides. I can tell you that about 1/15th of my income is taken as taxes. I cannot afford the things a rich person can. I’ve seen how the rich live… much better than I do.

    Perhaps you’d like to see a loaf of bread cost more (correlating to salary) for the rich person than the poor? I’m sure you wouldn’t want the precious rich to suffer so.

  105. 105
    jenniebee says:

    Top 5% of income earners in this country pay 54% of all taxes

    Darrell, of course, left out the part about that top 5% of the country posessing 57% of the total wealth. Darrell may be sympathetic with them for their horrible plight of having to pay less for each dollar that they own than the other 95% of us shlubs have to, but I’m not.

  106. 106
    jenniebee says:

    Oops – forgot to close my tags. Apologies.

  107. 107
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Thanks, Jenniebee. That’s the number I was looking for.

  108. 108
    Darrell says:

    ImJohnGalt Says:

    Thanks, Jenniebee. That’s the number I was looking for.

    Was it? Because it’s certainly not the number you asked for. What you asked for was percentage of “income” not wealth. A person could theoretically have relatively low income, but lots of wealth (in real estate for example). Retirees typically have a lot of wealth relative to their income.. And since we pay taxes on income and not wealth, income is the relevant metric.

    Fact is, the rich pay a higher percentage of taxes on their dollars earned. So although they make more money, they pay a higher tax rate on those dollars.

  109. 109
    Moll Slanders says:

    So although they make more money, they pay a higher tax rate on those dollars.

    and they still have a heck of a lot more money left over at the end of the pay period than the poor.

  110. 110
    Darrell says:

    and they still have a heck of a lot more money left over at the end of the pay period than the poor.

    So what’s your point? The rich pay a helluva lot of money in taxes. Are you suggesting that we should tax and redistribute income until everyone’s after-tax income is “equal”? Because you sure seem bitter that the rich have more money.

  111. 111
    Moll Slanders says:

    Bitter? Nope, I’m saying that the rich aren’t the ones struggling, as you would have us to believe.

  112. 112
    Zifnab says:

    Darrell, you still haven’t answered my question. How is it that top income earners receive fewer government services than low income earners?

  113. 113
    mrmobi says:

    So what’s your point? The rich pay a helluva lot of money in taxes. Are you suggesting that we should tax and redistribute income until everyone’s after-tax income is “equal”? Because you sure seem bitter that the rich have more money.

    This is classic Gruppenfuhrer here. No one said anything about it being “unfair” that rich people are rich, or that all income should be “redistributed,” which is Party of Torture code for the dreaded “socialism,” but our favorite Nazi has, through his special SS powers, determined that we all hate the rich!
    Kudos Gruppenfuhrer, on being stone cold clueless and always itchin’ for a fight. Brilliant!

  114. 114
    jg says:

    Darrell Says:

    Fact is, the rich pay a higher percentage of taxes on their dollars earned.

    What a master of the obvious you are.

    Shared burden of taxation Darrell, think about it.

  115. 115
    ThymeZone says:

    Fact is, the rich pay a higher percentage of taxes on their dollars earned.

    In 2007, Darrell discovers the principle of Progessive Taxation.

    It is the dawn of a new era and the era of a new dawn.

  116. 116
    Darrell says:

    Zifnab Says:

    Darrell, you still haven’t answered my question. How is it that top income earners receive fewer government services than low income earners?

    The rich typically don’t receive welfare or government medical care (except some medicare benefits when they’re older). They don’t get govt. housing subsidies. They pay the taxes which pay for this, but they almost never receive these services themselves.

    Did that really need to be spelled for you Zifnab?

  117. 117
    jg says:

    Darrell Says:

    Zifnab Says:

    Darrell, you still haven’t answered my question. How is it that top income earners receive fewer government services than low income earners?

    The rich typically don’t receive welfare or government medical care (except some medicare benefits when they’re older). They don’t get govt. housing subsidies. They pay the taxes which pay for this, but they almost never receive these services themselves.

    I think Darrell is on a slow boat to realization. Keep paddling Darrell. Soon you’ll understand that you just described why the left believes Bush and the neo-cons he represents, wants those entitlement programs eliminated. Not fixed, not better managed, gone.

  118. 118
    Chad N. Freude says:

    When you compare the percentage of taxes taken from a poor person’s take home pay, they amount to a much bigger chunk missing than that of a rich person.

    This is a major point that seems to be always ignored by the down-tricklers and the defenders of the right of those who get a lot to keep it at the expense of those who get little. Bill Gates and the lady who empties my wastebasket in the office all have to pay the same amount for a gallon of gas to get them to work, a carton of milk for their kids, and oh yeah, medical insurance. (Admittedly, the cleaning lady doesn’t have to pay a chauffeur’s salary, so her expenses are obviously much less.)
    If retail prices of necessities (from which I exclude $4000 shower curtains) were scaled to the purchaser according to total income or wealth (omigod, that’s [change to scary font] Communism), these guys might have an argument. But until that happens, the rich don’t really have much justification for whining about how unfair the system is to them.

  119. 119
    Moll Slanders says:

    The rich typically don’t receive welfare or government medical care

    Yeah, neither do I, but I can tell you that once my taxes are taken out, and my take home is spent on rent/food/gas… there isn’t a hell of a lot left.

    I guess I’m a welfare case, even though I have never sought welfare for a single moment in my life.

  120. 120
    jg says:

    I’ve never understood how giving more money back to people who already had tons of disposable cash was supposed to stimulate the economy? They buy big ticket items they don’t shop at Target. Even if they all bought a second yacht would that be better for our economy than every four person family making under $40000 being able to afford McDonald twice a week?

    Even when I supported republicans I could never work that one in my head. Cutting taxes raises tax revenue? Say what? Voodoo economics was the correct term IMO.

  121. 121
    Chad N. Freude says:

    The rich typically don’t receive welfare or government medical care (except some medicare benefits when they’re older). They don’t get govt. housing subsidies. They pay the taxes which pay for this, but they almost never receive these services themselves.

    One of my favorite arguments. Would the country, the society be better off without government subsidized housing and Medicare? If your answer is yes, we stop here. If your answer is “Um, not really,” then the money to pay for them has to come from people who have it. Yes, this is a redistribution of wealth, but that is what we have to do if we want to be better than a medieval society that leaves the poor to beg or starve. Unless, of course, you know of a more equitable (to the wealthy) way that no one has thought of yet.

  122. 122
    mrmobi says:

    mrmobi the next time you accuse religios people of your great “sin” intolerance I suggest you take a good LOOK IN THE MIRROR because you do not seem to like it if ANYBODY ELSE lives different from you.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. You have me confused with someone else. I do not make fun of religious people, (I did not used the term “sky fairy.”) I simply point out that not all of us “want” to be saved, or even believe it is necessary. If you want to incessantly harp on about how “unsaved” I am, fine, but don’t expect me to like it. Would you like it if I preached in here that all of us should accept Lucifer as our god?
    However, if you start telling me the world is 10,000 years old, I’m probably going to start joking, because that just isn’t true. Religious belief is not science.

    Maybe you say that this is the case with Christian people but at least we are trying to offer you a better life and salvation after but what do you offer? Nothing.

    See above.

    You do not know the meaning of sacrifice or devotion it is no part of your life. And you try to destroy the “way of life” of people who do know that there is more to this BEAUTIFUL LIFE than SELFISHNESS and MATERIALISM and SENSUALITY.

    Actually, I’m completely devoted to my wife and daughter, and I don’t destroy anything, in fact, I employ people and encourage them to do the best that they can. I’m also quite good at what I do and work very hard to be better at it every day. You seem to believe that unless I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior, I’m lost. You are wrong.

    But spirituality is something liberals only like when it is in “oppressed people” like American Indians or Tibet then it is cool to you but when it is your neighbor who believes in God you make fun of the “sky fairy.”

    Of all the stereotypes that Christians apply to non-religious people, this one pisses me off the most. What makes you think I don’t experience spirituality? Do I have to believe in Jesus to do that? You have your belief, fine, I’m happy for you, really. Don’t assume that a non-believer is somehow relegated to some gray world where there is no joy. You would be quite wrong in that.

    It makes me so mad. You have double standards too because nobody is supposed to say anything about your Cl*nis now because it is “old news” but the Crusades and Inquisition are always fair game aren’t they?

    What gets me about you people on the extreme right is how Clinton and his consensual affair = the end of democracy as we know it. Yet you stand by while a craven President tears away at the fabric of our system of government, cheering him on as he prepares to pass crushing debt on to our children and their children. You need to start paying attention.

    I’m giving you this response because, based on your last post, I don’t think you are a spoof, and I’m not here to ridicule anyone who doesn’t deserve it.

  123. 123
    Darrell says:

    One of my favorite arguments. Would the country, the society be better off without government subsidized housing and Medicare?

    But that wasn’t the “argument” dumbass. It was a response to a question from Zifnab asking me to explain why I believe that the rich take fewer govt services than the poor. That’s it.

    Dishonest leftists try to morph that direct response to a direct questions into something which was never said or implied in order to advance their drama queen “arguments”. Pathetic

  124. 124
    jg says:

    Keep in mind Darrell if you aren’t one of them (the rich) you are just a water bearer. They are using you for their own ends, not yours.

    Have you read 1984 yet? Its got torture.

  125. 125
    Chad N. Freude says:

    But that wasn’t the “argument” dumbass. It was a response to a question from Zifnab asking me to explain why I believe that the rich take fewer govt services than the poor.

    OK, Take 2:
    Would the country, the society be better off without government subsidized housing and Medicare?

  126. 126
    Darrell says:

    jg Says:

    I’ve never understood how giving more money back to people who already had tons of disposable cash was supposed to stimulate the economy?

    Let me explain the theory. Rich people, on average, are better at creating wealth. Many have inherited their wealth and others through ill-gotten means, but on average, the rich have a better track record at creating wealth.

    If this class of people has more money at their disposal, they are more likely to invest it rather than blow it, thereby creating more jobs and more wealth for themselves and others.

    That’s the theory. I don’t completely buy it, but it’s plausible. Since you and others are too blinded by partisan dogma and stupidity to bother to understand such things, I thought I’d spell it out for you all. You can thank me later.

  127. 127
    Chad N. Freude says:

    dumbass

    Dishonest

    drama queen

    And, um, exactly what was the insulting language I used to merit these comments?

  128. 128
    Darrell says:

    Would the country, the society be better off without government subsidized housing and Medicare?

    I think the country and society would be better off with much less government subsidized housing and less Medicare. When welfare was refomed in the 90’s under Clinton and the Republican congress, it reduced dependency.

  129. 129
    Chad N. Freude says:

    I don’t completely buy it, but it’s plausible.

    Are we talking here about Intelligent Design? Phlogiston? Alien abduction? Oh, economic theory. Which might be testable.

  130. 130
    Darrell says:

    And, um, exactly what was the insulting language I used to merit these comments?

    You and others took my responses and dishonestly twisted them into something which was never said or implied by me. It was dishonest as hell. Clear now?

  131. 131
    Chad N. Freude says:

    I think the country and society would be better off with much less government subsidized housing and less Medicare.

    A civil answer. Thank you. And an opinion that can be (dare I say it) argued.

    When welfare was refomed in the 90’s under Clinton and the Republican congress, it reduced dependency.

    Well, it certainly reduced dependency on government money that was no longer available. I think it did not make all of the formerly dependent independent.

  132. 132
    Chad N. Freude says:

    Clear now?

    Got it. Calling an assertion of a position an argument is dishonest and deserving of excoriation.

  133. 133
    jg says:

    Darrell Says:

    jg Says:

    I’ve never understood how giving more money back to people who already had tons of disposable cash was supposed to stimulate the economy?

    Let me explain the theory. Rich people, on average, are better at creating wealth. Many have inherited their wealth and others through ill-gotten means, but on average, the rich have a better track record at creating wealth.

    If this class of people has more money at their disposal, they are more likely to invest it rather than blow it, thereby creating more jobs and more wealth for themselves and others.

    That’s the theory. I don’t completely buy it, but it’s plausible. Since you and others are too blinded by partisan dogma and stupidity to bother to understand such things, I thought I’d spell it out for you all. You can thank me later.

    First of all how is it partisan blindness? Did you read the part where I said I supported the right?

    Saying its plausible is a dodge. There is no linkage between lowering taxes on rich people and massive amounts of investment that will help the country. Saying wealthy people are more likely to be creative with their money isn’t argument its opinion. The is no factual basis to the statement. Like all right wing economic theory, its based on ‘if we do this then this will happen’ fantasyland bullshit. Showed that that will happen if you do this, don’t just tell me it will contrary to all logic and common sense.

    I love that you comment with such attitude like you’re showing those damn leftists yet what you’re doing is giving us an example to show everyone how vacant right wng economic theory really is. Its based on plausible theories that even you don’t completely believe in but you’ll defend it in the face of lefty opposition. Classic.

  134. 134
    Darrell says:

    Got it. Calling an assertion of a position an argument is dishonest and deserving of excoriation.

    But you and others weren’t just “asserting of a position”, you all were twisting words. I replied to a direct question from Zifnab, and that response dishonestly represented what I said (“see, he wants to end all government benefits”) by not just you, but several on this thread.

  135. 135
    Darrell says:

    There is no linkage between lowering taxes on rich people and massive amounts of investment that will help the country.

    Actually there is such a linkage. After Reagan’s tax cuts and Bush’s tax cuts, money coming into the treasury INCREASED. More spending and investment resulted in more income and more jobs, which added up to more money coming into the treasury, despite lower tax rates.

    Its based on plausible theories that even you don’t completely believe in but you’ll defend it in the face of lefty opposition

    the theory is more plausible than anything you and the other leftists on this thread have put forth on this thread. You never have been able to defend your arguments well jg. See this thread for proof of that

  136. 136
    jg says:

    ‘Darrell Says:

    There is no linkage between lowering taxes on rich people and massive amounts of investment that will help the country.

    Actually there is such a linkage. After Reagan’s tax cuts and Bush’s tax cuts, money coming into the treasury INCREASED. More spending and investment resulted in more income and more jobs, which added up to more money coming into the treasury, despite lower tax rates.’

    Then what is the linkage? Surely you can point it out for me. (No i didn’t just call you Shirley). Event B occurring after event A isn’t indicative of a link between them no matter how coincidental it looks. You said money increased after the tax cuts but you didn’t say how one effected the other. Thats what I mean by linkage.

    ‘the theory is more plausible than anything you and the other leftists on this thread have put forth on this thread. You never have been able to defend your arguments well jg. See this thread for proof of that’

    What does this mean? Are you arguing something here?

  137. 137
    Chad N. Freude says:

    But you and others weren’t just “asserting of a position”

    I think you’re a bit confused. You made an assertion, I referred to it as an argument.

    “see, he wants to end all government benefits”

    Never said it. Go back and read the posting.

  138. 138
    Chad N. Freude says:

    Fellow Commenters –
    I apologize. I do know better than to get into a discussion with Darrell. This one’s over.

  139. 139
    Zifnab says:

    The rich typically don’t receive welfare or government medical care (except some medicare benefits when they’re older). They don’t get govt. housing subsidies. They pay the taxes which pay for this, but they almost never receive these services themselves.

    However, as I’ve stated above, welfare and goverment medical care accounts for a smaller portion of the budget than national security and interest on the national debt. And the rich benefit far more from a stable economy and a protected nation than the poor do.

    Furthermore, a healthy workforce benefits the upper echalons of society as much as it does the workforce that receives the care. Government healthcare effectively subsidies business and the employee is the one who picks up the check – in the form of the across-the-board Medicare tax.

    The same can be said for road contruction, the FAA, the boarder patrol, or the coast guard. The value a CEO receives from the FAA – which allows all his employees to travel safely and freely throughout the United States – far outweighs the benefit to any single given employee. Therefore, logically, the CEO has an obligation to pay a higher percentage of the cost of maintaining the FAA.

  140. 140
    Darrell says:

    However, as I’ve stated above, welfare and goverment medical care accounts for a smaller portion of the budget than national security and interest on the national debt.

    Elaborate for us then zifnab how you came to this enlightened conclusion:

    A national military is much more valuable to Trump Tower than it is to Tim’s house in Queens.

    This explanation I want to hear, so I can include it in my “leftist freaks” scrapbook.

  141. 141
    Zifnab says:

    Let us assume we have a band of villanious terrorists who wish to launch a murderous assault on the fair citizens of New York. Which do you think they will most likely throw an airliner into? Donald Trump’s namesake tower? Or some guy’s house in Queens? Who benefits more from keeping Cuban Communist infiltrators from sneaking into Florida and formenting a socialist revolution? Mr. Guavera, the immigrant tomatoe picker? Or Michael Eisner, the former CEO of Walt Disney?

    Who benefits more from having a military to protect its worldly possessions? They guy with shitloads of worldly possessions? Or the guy living paycheck to paycheck in low-rent housing?

    The rich benefit significantly more than the poor from an active and successful military because the rich have signifcantly more to lose and are significantly more visible targets to aggressors. And as the military consumes 25% of our trillion-dollar national budget, the rich should sensibly pay the lion’s share of that cost.

    Where am I going wrong? Enlighten me back.

  142. 142
    Richard 23 says:

    immigrant tomatoe picker

    Are you Dan Quayle?

Comments are closed.