Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Grover Norquist Thinks Congressional Republicans Have Been Too REASONABLE When It Comes To Hostage Taking

As I'm sure you're all aware, it seems that the Republicans in congress enjoyed taking the global economy hostage so much last year, they've decided to make it an annual thing. Well, turns out some want to take it to another level. Grover Norquist, the most powerful man in America who can't get laid (to quote Bill Maher), offered this ingenius idea:

MIKE ALLEN: This president is not going to extend [Bush tax cuts], he knows that he loses his leverage that way.

NORQUIST: Well, the Republicans also have other leverage. Continuing resolutions on spending and the debt ceiling increase. They can give him debt ceiling increases once a month. They can have him on a rather short leash, you know, here’s your allowance, come back next month.
ALLEN: Okay, wait. You’re proposing that the debt ceiling be increased month by month?

NORQUIST: Monthly if he’s good. Weekly if he’s not.
Yes, good ole' Grover thinks it would be just downright dandy to threaten the full faith and credit of the U.S. on a weekly basis. As Steve Benen asked yesterday, how the hell is shit like this NOT a major scandal? Here's Grover openly (and proudly) suggesting that the Republicans take economic terrorism to the next level, and instead of going to butt pounding prison, he'll be scheduled to appear on a litany of Sunday talk shows to offer more brilliant insight.

But hey, it's totally okay cause Obama didn't vote to raise the debt ceiling that one time when he was senator. Both sides do it!

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Your Job Creators, Ladies and Gentlemen...

Dave Weigel flagged this article from Yahoo! Finance that talks about various ways the richies are trying to prepare for Obama's taxageddon, and highlighted one amusing/depressing portion:

Kristina Collins, a chiropractor in McLean, Va., said she and her husband planned to closely monitor the business income from their joint practice to avoid crossing the income threshold for higher taxes outlined by President Obama on earnings above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.
Ms. Collins said she felt torn by being near the cutoff line and disappointed that federal tax policy was providing a disincentive to keep expanding a business she founded in 1998.
“If we’re really close and it’s near the end-year, maybe we’ll just close down for a while and go on vacation,” she said.

I imagine most liberals, after reading that passage are suffering from acute head trauma due to all the banging done against the nearest wall. Weigel's thoughts reflect my own:

You see these idiots every time a tax hike becomes possible again. They have no apparent idea how marginal rates work. Right now, if her and her husband make $250,000, they pay at most a 33% tax on some of that income. If they made $251,000, they would have to pay the same rates for everything except that last $1000 -- that, they'd be taxed at 35%. If the rates increase across the board that top rate becomes 39.6%. 
How do people still not understand that, and how does it color the debate over taxes? Barack Obama's managed to win two elections on a pledge to hike that top rate, and yet the people who don't understand it manage to get quoted every year.

 Look. I'll be man enough to admit that I didn't have a clue about how progressive taxation worked until like 2008. But then again, 1) I didn't (and still don't) make nearly enough to have to even worry about marginal tax rates, and 2) I'm not one of these high and mighty, virtually deified "job creators" who gets quoted by major outlets like Yahoo! Finance.

I'm truly baffled by this. I mean, if you have a business, one would think by definition you'd have SOME understanding of tax policy. I mean, to not understand something as fundamental as how marginal tax rates work is not some minor oversight. 

Friday, November 16, 2012

John McCain Was Unable to Attend Funeral For Fallen Benghazi Victims Because He Was Too Busy Grieving For Their Deaths

(Washington D.C.)  Republican Senator John McCain found himself in a somewhat awkward situation earlier today when he was asked to explain why he didn't attend the funerals for the victims in the Benghazi tragedy.

"I wanted to attend. I really did. However, I was just too overwhelmed with grief and anguish for these true American heroes." said Mccain, before bursting into tears.

The 76 year old lawmaker, who appeared in seventeen different interviews from just this morning, was already under fire from many senate democrats for allegedly demagoguing the Benghazi attacks, while also skipping out on a classified, closed door Senate Homeland Security briefing on Benghazi.

The senator however, brushed off criticisms from his colleagues. "The sheer thought that I'm attempting to use this tragic turn of events for either my own political gain or just simply for my own selfish sense of amusement is insulting!"

Asked if he would be visiting the graves of the deceased ambassador and his officers, McCain said he would try his best to free up his schedule to make the trip, but insisted that it appearing on every cable news show on T.V. to attack President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, was the best way to honor their memories.

"It's what they would have wanted." the senator stated as he wiped away his tears and took several gulps from a bottle of Jack Daniel's.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Breaking: Idiot Fox Hosts Don't Know What The Hell They're Talking About

So there was a particularly wretched segment on the televised clown car sketch that is The Five earlier today. The topic was about the disturbing movement among a number of tea bagging idiots around the country who have signaled their desire to secede from the U.S.

The hosts wasted no time in making moronic statements. After making the eight millionth "57 States" joke in the episode, "comedian" Greg Gutfield (surprisingly) disapproved of the idea of secession supported by his fellow mouth breathers, while simultaneously sympathizing with the sentiment. However, he did go on to offer a challenge to see once and for all whether blue states, with their freedom hatin' and forced gay marriages would manage to stand up to the the free market utopias that consists of REAL 'Merica..

Yes, Greg. Let's have that competition. I'm more than willing and I'm sure most other blue staters would be as well.

After he listed off a slew of inane strawmen vices and virtues describing the differences between the different states (and after noted other douchebag Eric Bolling made a birth certificate "joke"), the femservatives (whose names escape me and of which I have no curiosity to check) on the panel mentioned how Real 'Merica is gonna get right angry at having to support the commie, freeloader blue states and may have to go Galt. Bob Beckel, the panel's token democrat/freedom hater, politely pointed out that it was in fact, the other way around, that blue states were the ones doing the supporting. And shockingly enough, Eric Bolling of all people agreed with Beckel.

Now let's bring out some unpleasant information (which we commies like to call "facts"). Here's a list of the top welfare queen states (defined as any state that receives more money from the government than it pays in taxes):

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.
  • New Mexico: $2.03
  • Mississippi: $2.02
  • Alaska: $1.84
  • Louisiana: $1.78
  • West Virginia: $1.76
  • North Dakota: $1.68
  • Alabama: $1.66
  • South Dakota: $1.53
  • Kentucky: $1.51
  • Virginia: $1.51
  • Montana: $1.47
  • Hawaii: $1.44
  • Maine: $1.41
  • Arkansas: $1.41
  • Oklahoma: $1.36
  • South Carolina: $1.35
  • Missouri: $1.32
  • Maryland: $1.30
  • Tennessee: $1.27
  • Idaho: $1.21
Notice anything interesting in there? Nearly all those states sucking on the federal teat are red states. And how do the laboratories of socialism fare?

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.
Well, would you look at that! Seems bootstrappin's infinitely easier when someone else is doing it for you. Who woulda thunk?

One of the femservatives in that clip tried to argue that red states are richer than blue states because red states tend to have balanced budgets. This is like saying that the guy who owns the porno shop across the street from me, who happens to be breaking even is therefore richer than a company like Sony because they posted an annual loss of $5.7 billion this year.

Sorry dipshits. But blue states tend to have things that are both attractive to the general population and yes, even businesses too. Things like infrastructure, investments in education, as well as large labor pools. These are among the reasons why rich people, even those that tend to be ultra right wingers, tend to live in blue states.

Seriously, think about it. You always hear foreigners mentioning how they're dying to see Los Angeles, or New York. But how many say (or have ever said) they're totally stoked to tour the world's most impressive dirt farm residing in Grainger, Tennessee? Not many, I'd figure. For the same reason you don't see too many people wanting to take a vacation in Somalia or Sierra Leone.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Marriage Warrior Pat Robertson Deems Petraes' Affair Totally Acceptable

While some folks have frowned upon the news of former CIA director, David Patraeus' little extramarital adventures, others have decided to come to his aid. Enter everyone's favorite televangelist, Pat Robertson, with a very Christian-like justification:

“She is an extremely good-looking woman,” Robertson said of Broadwell. “She is marathon runner, she’d run Iron Man triathlons, and so she’s out running with him, and she’s writing a biography. And I think the term is propinquity. And there was a lot of propinquity going on.”

He then offered up this potential reasoning for Petraeus’ affair: “The man’s off in a foreign land and he’s lonely and here’s a good-looking lady throwing herself at him. He’s a man.
 Yes, Petraeus was horny and his wife was unable to service him and his mistress was hot, therefore FAMILY VALUES.

To be clear, I don't give a shit about Patraeus' dalliances, but I'm also not one of the people like Pat Robertson who endlessly bitches about the so called "sanctity" of marriage being threatened by the gays and teachers unions and such.

Also, did I mention that Robertson is totally cool with wife beating as well?

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Welp, Don't Think The Bubble's Gonna Be Popping Any Time Soon

I figured after Obama got re-elected, the righties would drop the Bhengazi-gate stuff. Not cause they would have realized they were beating a dead horse, but because they would have found some new shiny faux-scandal to exploit. Alas, seems Bhengazi-gate is here to stay for at least a little while longer:

The she-demon in the above video conversing with Sean Hannity is of course, the great Michelle Malkin, who referred to the Obama admin as (no joke) "politically correct" and (seriously, not joking) "jihadi coddling".


Okay, two things. First, there are times when I feel Obama does himself a disservice when he brags about killing Bin Laden. But, then you have shrieking harpies like Michelle Malkin who criticize Obama the way they do, my criticism suddenly dissipates. Furthermore it just makes me wish Obama would show up to all his press conferences from now until the end of his term wearing an "I killed Osama Bin Laden" t-shirt. Maybe even sport a cowboy hat.

Second, let me be clear. What happened in Bhengazi was a serious matter, and there should be an investigation as to exactly what happened. But let's not kid ourselves. Malkin appears very animated and visibly angry in the video, but the primary motive involved in this entire ordeal is to attack Obama, and nullify the foreign policy cred he's built up so far.

Also, what are these morons hoping to find, exactly? That Obama was sitting inside the war room (or wherever the hell) seeing the carnage go down in real time, being urged to send in assistance, while laughing evilly while smoking a cigar? Is this a meme in right wing circles where Obama enjoys seeing his underlings die or something?

I guess what I'm saying is fuck Michelle Malkin.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Glenn Beck: "Man, sometimes God really sucks" (Direct Quote)

Poor, poor Glenn:

During his radio show the next morning, Beck told listeners that he had realized Romney was going to lose while praying before the polls opened on Tuesday.

“Man, sometimes God really sucks,” the radio host lamented. “I got up yesterday at 3:00 in the morning and I knew. And I couldn’t sleep and I started to say my prayers and I got up and kneeled down by the edge of my bed and I knew that — or I suspected that my mind’s not God’s mind, and the peace and the comfort that he had given me and so many of my friends was not about an election.”

"God's only cool when he supports Republicans! Why does he like those stupid Democrats so much when they don't even believe in him and respect him like I do?! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!"

By the way, if Obama's was re-elected because it was God's will, does this mean that the muslims got this one right?

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Mitt Romney to America: That's A Nice Country You Got There. Be A Shame If Something Happened To It

Throughout the campaign, Mitt's made many arguments on why he should be president, ranging from his business experience being invaluable in creating jobs, to his supposedly awesome record as someone who worked with people across the isle. Feeling that such qualifications weren't good enough, Romney's decided to go with one final gambit: elect him or his party will blow up the fucking country:

You know that if the President is re-elected, he will still be unable to work with the people in Congress," Romney said. "He has ignored them, attacked them, blamed them. The debt ceiling will come up again, and shutdown and default will be threatened, chilling the economy."
So Mittens is essentially saying that because congress is unfortunately filled to the brim with people who would be more appropriately suited to residing in various street corners and park benches, they will once again attempt to destroy the global economy just cause they don't like Obama. Romney sees this as a legitimate, defensible argument in favor of voting him in, instead of being an argument for why his Tealiban suicide bombers should be voted out of congress, never to come anywhere near any positions of power ever again. 
The fact that Romney saw nothing wrong with him openly stating such a thing once again proves the uselessness of our media.
Speaking of which, I'd like to point out that quite a few conservatives who have a reputation of distinguishing themselves from their fellow conservatives (specifically of the Tea folk persuasion) on account of them not having a straight up loathing for them new fangled readin' books, have made the same argument. This includes Ramesh Panooru, David Frum, and the great David Brooks. And these guys are supposed to be the "moderates" in this absolute joke of a political party.