Friday, March 29, 2013

So Dr. Ben Carson Was a Fan of the Robber Barons

Well this isn't surprising in the least. 

A few weeks ago, Tom Ashbrook, of NPR's On Point invited newly minted conservative heartthrob, Dr. Ben Carson to discuss a variety of topics, from health care, to economics, to political correctness. The entire interview was nearly an hour long so there was lots of stuff to comment on (which I will revisit in subsequent posts, hopefully), but one in particular stood out.

When discussing the topic of taxation, Carson talked about how the likes of John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Cornelius Vanderbilt were unfairly criticized for supposedly being evil, greedy businessman, when in fact, according to Carson, they exemplified the U.S.'s "rich history of generosity". Yes, what people in the past would have called "robber barons", right wingers like Carson wistfully remember them as the far more noble "job creators".

Fortunately, one of the show's listeners thought that sounded weird as well, and called out Carson on his hagiography, by pointing out that thousands of workers were exploited by these magnanimous folk. Carson responded by saying that there "is absolutely nothing done that is perfect", and that he didn't understand what point the caller was trying to make. Tom Ashbrook tried to help Carson out by asking if the exploitation of the Chinese working on the railroads was a good thing, to which Carson replied that it (along with slavery) wasn't, BUT:

I can go through a whole list of bad things and we can concentrate on them, or we can learn from them, and we can move on and do things better. But to just take the bad, and say that negates the good I think is a spurious argument.

"Nobody ever talks about the GOOD things that happened when we didn't have child labor laws!"

Thursday, March 21, 2013

I Shouldn't Be Surprised By This, But Still...

You ever wonder how awesome it would be if there was a book that tried to explain right wing macroeconomic theory to five year olds? Oh, you never wondered that? At all? Well, someone decided to do that anyway.

Some nice lady named Lucile McConnell, published a book entitled Mr. Penny And The Dragon of Domeville. Basically it's about an anthropomorphic penny's mission to stop an evil dragon that's supposed to be the personification of runaway government spending.

The book’s hero, Mr. Penny, is introduced as “quite an individual and not a follower.”

“Once upon a penny, in the Land of Us, in the little town of Meville, lived a little penny. In fact, a whole lot of little pennies were scattered all over the Land of Us, but our story is about one particular penny: Mr. Penny.
He was a singular fellow, quite an individual and not a follower of the crowd.”

The antagonist, a dragon designed to represent a bloated federal government, won’t stop growing and loves to eat currency.

“In fact, he developed a taste for charred bills … dollar bills. Within no time, the dragon had devoured $15 Trillion and was always looking around for more to consume.”

Eventually, Mr. Penny scores a one-on-one with the dragon and does his level best to convince the dragon just how reckless federal waste can be.

Eat your heart out, The Berenstein Bears.

This is how the author describes herself on the book's website that she created back in 1995:

Lucile McConnell is a tax/commercial transactions attorney admitted to practice in Washington, DC and New York. She graduated Cum Laude from Cornell Law School in 1987 and with Honors in Economics from the University of Chicago in 1983. She founded the non-for-profit organization The Fund to End the Deficit in 1993 and rallied citizens, under Public Law 87-58 (P.L. 87-58), to make voluntary contributions to retire America's National Debt through 1999. These voluntary citizen contributions, including contributions from such events as Rock the Debt, Wine Down the Debt and Dance the Debt Away, amounted to an all time high in voluntary citizen contributions to Debt retirement during the 90's and played a part in generating the budget surplus that was recorded in 1999. 
 Damn, this lady sure cares a lot about debt!

Gotta hand it to the tea baggers. Only they could create a book that even pre-schoolers would find insulting to their intelligence.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Bill O'Reilly: Obama May Start Killing People Over Taxes

On Tuesday's episode of The Factor, Bill O'Reilly had a segment where he expressed his strong dislike for the budget released by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and their proposed 49% tax on the top earners. The "discussion" took an interesting turn towards the end (skip to 5:57) :

O'Reilly: Now, I'm researching Killing Jesus (note: This is O'Reilly's newest, upcoming book), do you know why Jesus was killed by the Romans?

Fox News Contributor, Marc Lamont-Hill declined to answer, fearing backlash from right-wing viewers, so O'Reilly goes on:

O'Reilly: It was about taxes.

Lamont-Hill: Of course it was about taxes! It was about unregulated capitalism!

O'Reilly: It's unbelievable the correlation between what was happening in Galilee and what the Romans were doing to the Jews back when Jesus was walking around and what's happening now. I'm just gonna give you a heads up that this has been coming and taxation was so onerous on the folks, for a totally different reason, I'll concede. The Romans were venal, they wanted all this money to build their temples and to live in a crazy life style. But it was philosophically the same kind of government intrusion that we the people of America have no right to private property.

I see. So in this analogy, Bill O' would in fact be...Jesus? Or "the folks", I guess. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the 1% in Galilee weren't the ones being oppressed.

I particularly like how O'Reilly admits that when the Romans taxed the people, they weren't doing so to fund things like Pilatecare, and spent the money on things that didn't benefit the public, but still finds it completely okay to continue with the comparison. I mean, aside from the major differences, the two situations are exactly alike.

Though in fairness, Obama does hate the Jews.

Rush Limbaugh Fears The Gays Will Ruin The Sanctity Of His Fourth Marriage

Sorry, there's just way too much crap in here that I'm not gonna bother transcribing:

The gist of it is that Rush says gay marriage isn't "virtuous" and would "corrupt and old age custom". As noted in the title, Mr. Limbaugh has been married four times so far, even surpassing former sanctimonious, opposite marriage champ, Newt "Leader of civilization, perhaps" Gingrich. I know self-awareness is a trait commonly lacking in right-wingers, but seriously?

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Oh, Noel...

It seems my man, Noel Sheppard (of Newsbusters) is in quite a good mood today. See, he finally got a chance to catch this Volkswagon commercial (that's been airing for weeks):

And why exactly is my man, Noel Shepard, positively giddy about this? Because one of guys in the commercial happens to use a phrase that was popularized by a certain half-term, half-wit governor.

Noel, apparently could not contain himself:

The idea of the term "lamestream media" becoming common in American parlance is just exquisitely delicious.

In fact, a new commercial by Volkswagen will definitely put a smile on a lot of conservatives' faces including former Alaska governor Sarah Palin
I'm sure it will. 

As the commercial began, a man dressed in workout clothes carrying a newspaper walked up to his neighbor seated in a black Passat in his driveway.

“Good morning, Brian,” he said. After the window went down on the driver’s side, he continued, “Love your Passat.”

“Um, listen, Gary,” Brian replied. “I bought the last one.”

“Nice try,” Gary said pointing at his newspaper. “It says right here you can get one for 199 a month.”

“You can’t believe the lamestream media, Gary,” deliciously said Brian. “They’re all gone.”



Noel seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that the African American fellow in the commercial was using the term "lamestream media" in a mocking fashion, and is not, in fact, supposed to be an avid Fox News viewer.

Look, I honestly don't think this particular commercial is overtly political in either direction, but if there there was any political intent here, it wasn't to make Palin look cool.

Irony Is Dead Once Again

It's been a while since we've heard from the Thrilla From Wasilla. The former half-term, half-wit governor was one of the keynote speakers for the right wing freak show that is CPAC. She gave a nearly 30 minute, typically Palin-esque speech that was littered with gems like this:

"We don't have leadership coming out of White House. We have reality television."

Oh, lordy. You gotta be kidding. This coming from a woman who only a few years ago starred in her, abysmally rated (critically, not commercially...sadly) reality show. The same woman who also had a daughter come out with her own, which fared even worse than her dimwitted mother's did.

Also, it's even more baffling why Palin was using referring to reality T.V. in a pejorative manner considering right-wingers seem to love that type of programming.

By the way, Caribou Barbie also mocked Obama's use of a teleprompter, while she was reading her speech off her hand a teleprompter! And as you would expect, as with the above comment, her mouth breathing audience saw nothing wrong, and cheered wildly.

Watch the entire speech here if you have half an hour to kill and/or hate yourself:

Thursday, March 14, 2013

You Know Who ELSE Wanted To Help Poor People Get Affordable Health Insurance?!

Well, another 15 minutes have passed by, and you know what that means: time for another invocation of Godwin's Law by Rush Limbaugh. This time it was to draw the terrifying parallels between Hitler and Obama's health care plans:

"Healthcare has always been, nationalized health care has always been one of the first objectives of any of the famous totalitarian regimes. Hitler, National Socialism, first thing he did, nationwide healthcare."

I've seen this particular Obamacare/Hitlercare meme in many a chain e-mail, but this is the first time that I'm hearing it relayed by El Rushbo. Surprised it took so long. In any case, there are at least three things wrong with this little fairy tale.

First off, Germany has had nationalized health care long before Hitler came to power:

The country's heath care system dates to 1883 — only a dozen years after Otto von Bismarck melded a disparate collection of kingdoms and duchies into the German Empire. The "Iron Chancellor," as Bismarck was known, persuaded the country's parliament to enact a national system of health insurance based on the guilds' sickness funds.

From what I've researched, when the Righties point to Hitler's "government takeover of health care", they seem to be referring to this:

It’s true the Nazis had health care. They inherited the tradition from Bismarck, who set up the first national health system in the world (after unifying Germany in 1871).
But there was a difference between Nazi health care and the systems under the German Empire and the Weimar Republic. Hitler rearranged the system under a strict regime of central government control, so all insurance-scheme managers reported straight to Berlin. 

So it was when Hitler centralized the health care system that everything went to hell, apparently. To continue:

Later — and not through the insurance companies — Hitler started his infamous T4 program, which ordered doctors to euthanize tens of thousands of institutionalized patients, people who didn’t fit his vision of a pure new German Reich — immigrants, the old and weak, the mentally ill.

Sounds like kind of a dick move, right? It is, but this leads me to point no. 2: Perhaps (and I'm just spitballin' here) the problem with Hitler's health care regime didn't have so much to do with its bureaucracy as it had to do with the fact that Hitler was a genocidal sociopath. Indeed, as the article continues:
That was evil. But it was part of an evil mechanism that extended far beyond the medical system: By 1939 Germany was a brutal dictatorship, and Hitler managed to kill millions of people in his own country regardless of whether they had health insurance.

And finally, it should be pointed out to these retards that Germany currently STILL HAS nationalized* health care! (as does every other industrialized country) And shockingly enough, this hasn't caused German Chancellor, Angela Merkel to start rounding up the Jews.


*I'm using the term "nationalized" in the absolute loosest sense. Rush and his minions use the term to include even the most limited level of involvement by the government, like with Obamacare, and that's how I'm using it for the purposes of this article as well.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Right-Wing Economist Flails Miserably Trying To Discredit Keynesian Economics

Liberal radio host, Thom Hartmann invited the absolutely wretched conservative economist, Peter Ferrara, to his show the other day to debate the theory of Keynesian economics. Why Hartmann continuously invites this guy is an absolute mystery. It's not that he's a disingenuous right-wing hack, but rather he's an utterly obnoxious, disingenuous right-wing hack. Seriously, the guy is one of the rudest guests I've seen on a politically related talk show (and that's saying something!).

But that's an entirely separate complaint for another day. Getting back to the matter at hand, during the interview, Ferrara repeatedly made the argument that government spending does not lead to growth, to which, Hartmann (repeatedly) asked him how the U.S. got out of the Great Depression (skip to 4:25):

Ferrara amusingly stutters several times before finally blurting out WWII, as being what got us out of the Depression. Hartmann, was understandably confused. To make the argument that government spending doesn't help economic growth, only to follow up by using the biggest government spending initiative in our history as evidence, is indeed rather puzzling. After a few minutes, Ferrara too, realizes that he's undercut his own argument, and disavows his previous answer. His newest excuse to how we got out of the Great Depression was just simply that enough time had passed by, and the Depression basically tired itself out. Seriously.

Furthermore, he trots out the standard conservative line that FDR prolonged the Depression by going with "Obamanomics 1" and had he not done that, the Depression would have ended in 1929. But this too is a curious argument to make. First, it should be pointed out that Hoover was still president in 1929, and FDR wouldn't take office until 1933. Second of all, I could be mistaken, but I thought Hoover did exactly what Ferrara (and his ilk) is prescribing, letting the economy fix itself without having the government getting in the way and messing things up?

Okay, to be fair, perhaps Ferrara was referring to the tax hikes that both Hoover and FDR enacted. Even though the original subject was about spending, let's just play along. It's true that Hoover hiked taxes. The top rate went from 25% to 63%, and then FDR jacked up the rates even further to a height of 94% in 1944. Additionally, as time went on, federal spending absolutely exploded with the advent of WWII, going from $9.5 billion in 1940 to a whopping $92 billion in 1945. So here you have a conservative economist's worst nightmare: astronomically high tax rates* with astronomically high spending, which by all rights should have turned the U.S. into Somalia, right? Well...

Huh. Whaddya know? Apparently the job killing tax hikes* and job killing spending didn't do much job killing, despite FDR's best efforts. If conservative economic theory was correct, as long as taxation and spending was so high, the unemployment rate should never have come down, and instead remain sky high, regardless of how much time has passed until both issues were addressed. Let us also point out that revenues grew from $6.5 billion in 1940 to $45.2 billion in 1945. And so far we just mentioned the taxing and spending side and didn't even get into wage controls, price fixing and all the other freedom hating policies FDR enacted in addition to everything else.

But hey, points for effort I guess.

*Yes, I am aware that tax hikes aren't really Keynesian policies, but I thought I'd take the opportunity to rebut Ferrara on that front as well, since we were on the subject.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Komics KKKorner (03/12/12)

While I would prefer to mix things up and spread the ridicule to other shitty right wing artists, I just couldn't pass up this opportunity to mock Michael Ramirez's latest masterpiece:

Oh, boy.

The reference here is pretty self evident. Ramirez saw a commercial for Jack the Giant Slayer and thought he should make a comic about it. Of course, it's perfectly fine to draw something from the popular culture, but as is the case with Ramirez, the problem tends to be that he's quite terrible at metaphors.

Someone really needs to tell Ramirez that in the original Jack and the Beanstalk (and I presume, also in Jack The Giant Slayer), the Giant was supposed to be the bad guy.

I've noticed that Right-wing comics tend to take characters from famous stories and classical lore, the kind that people generally see in a positive light and somehow turn them into evildoers. For example...

Robin Hood:

And Santa Claus:

What's next? Obama depicted as Tiny Tim trying to steal money from that innocent job creator, Ebenezer Scrooge?

Why Does Bill O'Reilly Hate His Audience?

Bill O'Reilly does not like his audience. On the contrary, the man holds an immense amount of contempt for these people. Why do I say that? Because only someone who despises his followers would would say something like this (click to embiggen):

....and this:

Good gravy. Sorry Stephen Colbert. You might be pretty damn good at what you do, but like with many things, the original's always best.

While O'Reilly is no stranger to lying, the aforementioned lies are unique for their sheer brazenness. O'Reilly no doubt expects his mouth breathing audience to take him at his word while simultaneously expecting them to completely ignore the fact that this is being said by, well... O'Reilly.

Let us remember that this is the same Bill O'Reilly who has spent pretty much every day of his Fox News tenure whining endlessly about how he pays so much in taxes, which Democrats like Obama then use to pay off the negroes and the illegals. The same Bill O'Reilly who said that if Obama raised his taxes to the point that his effective rate would be 50%, thereby allowing Bill to "only" make $10,000,000 per year, he would quit his job?

Not to mention we're also talking about a guy who never misses an opportunity to talk about how his show is the number one cable news show in the country, and therefore, the most truthful and accurate. Someone who thinks of himself as the "second most powerful man in America"? You're telling me that this guy doesn't care about accumulating fame?!

You know, it's one thing for O'Reilly not to have any respect for the left, but at least that could be justified. After all, liberals and Democrats are supposed to be his enemies, so it would make sense that Bill O' doesn't care what they think. But you you would think he would have a tad more respect for the critical thinking capabilities of his idiot fan base, at the very least. 

Anyway, to finish up, here's one more gem:

Indeed. Whether it be from federal spending, illegals, taxes, scientists, Obamacare, contraception junkies, the new season of Glee, you can be sure Bill O' will be there to warn you, the American people, about it. Truly a modern day Paul Revere. Except far more heroic.

Monday, March 11, 2013

Republican Legislator Rails Against Medicaid....Oh Hell, You Know the Punchline...

During his inaugural speech last week, Will Weatherford, the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, spoke a bit about why he opposes expanding medicaid in his state, an initiative supported even by Florida's teabagger governor, Rick Scott (medicaid talk starts at 10:26):

He talks about how when he was growing up, due to his little brother's cancer treatment, his family was crushed under the weight of medical bills. Fortunately for Weatherford's family, they were able to pay off those bills thanks to a "safety net". But there was one little problem:

"Peter lost his battle with cancer, and my father found himself with a mountain of medical bills that he could never afford to pay," Weatherford told lawmakers on the floor of the House of Representatives. "It was the safety net that picked my father up. It was the safety net that picked my family up."
He left out one detail: the name of the safety net.

According to his father, it was Medicaid.

The federal-state health care program for the poor covered more than $100,000 in Peter's medical costs, Weatherford's father told the Times/Herald.
This was a tad embarrassing for Weatherford because during his speech he said the following:

"A government that grows too big, becomes too intrusive, and fosters too much dependency will threaten our liberty, our freedom and our prosperity," Weatherford said. "Members — I am opposed to Medicaid expansion because I believe it crosses the line of the proper role of government."

Of course, I'm sure in Will's mind, this characterization of "dependency" and such doesn't apply to him and his family. Sure, they sucked on the federal teat to take care of their medical bills, but that counts as bootstrappin' in Republican land (provided of course, you're a Republican).

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Republicans Say the Darndest Things

Ever since I started following politics, I found that one of the most shocking things when it came to this subject was how politicians (oh hell, why sugar coat it? Republicans) consistently, and more importantly, openly say absurd and idiotic things. Things that even someone who doesn't follow politics would say "Wait, WHAT?" Examples include one of my personal favorites, Senator Jon Kyl's famous "Not intended to be a factual statement" statement, and Rep. Steve King's absolutely glorious and breathtaking defense of dog fighting (easily the greatest thing I've seen in all of 2012). 

And here's the thing. Even in a world of chock full of moronic statements, the aforementioned examples stand out because they were prepared beforehand. These comments would still be awful and worthy of ridicule even if they were off the cuff, but one could at least grant some leeway. But no, Kyl and King came up with those remarks, presumably proofread them, and thought they appeared more than appropriate to go public.

Brother Benen provides us with yet another example of this phenomenon:

"Because of the president's reluctance to cut spending, we've been caught in this battle of having cliffs and having these deadlines. This is no way to run a government. But until the president gets serious about the serious structural spending problem that we have, we're going to have to deal with it. I suggested to the president the other day, the best thing we can do is find some way to get the Senate to finally do their work, have a large agreement that begins to address the spending problem, puts us on a path to balance the budget over the next 10 years, and get out of this cliff business. It's not good for the country for us to continue to go through this."
Let the bolded simmer in your brains for a bit. Here you have the (nominal) head of the Republican Party in the House saying that these consistent, manufactured crises are indeed a bad way to run a government, but he and his party will continue to govern in that fashion because Obama doesn't want to give them what they want. This is Boehner's defense! As Steve points out:

The fact that the House Speaker doesn't see the flaws in saying this out loud is disconcerting.


Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Komics KKKorner (03/06/13)

Damn, it's been a good while since I did one of these. Saw this gem, from right-wing "comic", Michael Ramirez, posted on one of the message boards I frequent (yes, I realize it's from last year, but I just had to comment on this):

So the comic is obviously referencing the novel, Don Quixote by Miguel Cervantes. The "joke" seems to be that Ramirez is mocking Obama for being as deluded about green technology/jobs as Don Quixote was when he thought the windmills he encountered in the novel were monsters .

Now, that's what Ramirez is trying to get at. Unfortunately, the way he set up the comic manages to mangle the metaphor beyond belief. First of all, Don Quixote thought he was fighting giants, not dragons. Second of all, Don Quixote was (mistakenly) attacking the windmills, which means that Obama should be attacking the windmills, which according to the labels, are supposed to represent a "green economy".  But...why would he be attacking a green economy if it's something he supports?! Furthermore, the stupid speech bubble indicates that Obama thinks he's fighting a dragon, which he thinks is the solution to all their problems? Wha? Also, in the novel, the windmill won.

Criminy, no one fucks up a metaphor quite like Michael Ramirez.

Update - Okay, real quickly one more:

Yes, no animal's more famous when it comes to self preservation than the dodo.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

"Todd Akin's Comments Were Offensive And Harmful, But He Had a Point"

A few days ago, Celeste Greig, the president of California's oldest and largest Republican volunteer group, joined the long line of Republicans to criticize Rep. Todd Akin for being a dumbass due to his little rape comments:

"That was an insensitive remark," Greig said. "I'm sure he regretted it. He should have come back and apologized."
Unfortunately, she also happened to join a long line of Republicans who simultaneously agreed with said comments:

"Granted, the percentage of pregnancies due to rape is small because it's an act of violence, because the body is traumatized," she added. "I don't know what percentage of pregnancies are due to the violence of rape. Because of the trauma the body goes through, I don't know what percentage of pregnancy results from the act."
 Oh, so close, Celeste.

Monday, March 4, 2013

So It Seems Republicans Think They Lost The Election Cause They Didn't Attack Medicare ENOUGH

I have to admit, I find this a tad puzzling:

WASHINGTON — Fired up as once-unimaginable spending cuts start to slice the federal budget, Republicans are launching a new phase in their austerity campaign — resurrecting the party's cost-cutting plan to turn Medicare into a voucher-like system for future seniors.

Despite public uncertainty Saturday about the $85 billion in so-called sequester cuts, Republicans now believe they have momentum to ask Americans to make tough choices on Medicare, as rising healthcare costs combine with an aging population to form a growing part of future deficits.


Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the former Republican vice presidential nominee, is preparing a budget blueprint that aims to balance revenue and spending in 10 years. But his effort has run afoul of the GOP vow not to change Medicare — the federal healthcare program for seniors and the disabled — for those now 55 or older.

Medicare eligibility currently begins at age 65. Ryan's approach would transform the benefits program into one that would provide a fixed amount of money in a voucher that future seniors could apply to the cost of buying private health insurance or to buying coverage through traditional Medicare.

Throughout last year's presidential campaign, the GOP promised not to change Medicare for today's seniors — only the next generation. But Republicans familiar with the number-crunching in Ryan's budget committee say balancing the budget may not be possible unless the changes start for those who are now 56 and younger.

Look, it was one thing when the Republicans passed Paul Ryan's original medicare coupon-ification plan in 2011. No doubt they were riding high after the midterms when the Teahadists helped put them back in power, and thus were deluded enough to think that was proof that the rest of the country wanted them to implement their Dickensian agenda. But now, after getting their clocks cleaned in the last election, these nimrods decide to float the idea of a medicare proposal that is (if you can believe it) even worse than the one Republicans in both chambers voted for two years ago? Seriously?

The Dems couldn't dream of getting a greater gift to hammer the Reps in 2014. Ryan's original medicare budget definitely had negative repercussions for him. Sure, one would think this is simply another attempt to fire up their base, but this'll be an even harder sell considering most Teabaggers are on medicare and the Republicans can't use the ten year "easing period" excuse anymore. 

Whatever. Not like I'm complaining. Anything that'll drive the Republicans further into the fringe is a good thing.

Example #3850207 Proving Republicans Aren't As Anti-Tax As They Claim

A Seattle lawmaker is defending his proposed bike tax by saying that bikes are a) unhealthy; and b) bad for the environment. Demonstrating a lack of understanding of bicycles that suggests he may not actually know what they are, Republican Rep. Ed Orcutt says bikes are bad for the environment because they cause cyclists to have "an increased heart rate and respiration." "You would be giving off more carbon dioxide if you are riding a bike than driving in a car," he said, before admitting that he had not "done any analysis" of the difference between carbon dioxide emissions of bikes and cars. Of course not.

Gotta love it when Republican legislators make authoritative comments on a subject only to remind people moments later that they don't have any actual knowledge on said subject whatsoever.

Now, while it's definitely important to highlight Orcutt's utterly embarrassing understanding of carbon emissions, I don't want to ignore the other another angle to this story, that Republicans once again prove that contrary to popular belief, they are not against taxes, provided they're directed at people Republicans don't care about/despise. When the government tries to tax the wealthy, it's a despotic attack against freedom itself! But if the government tries to tax the non-wealthy, especially if it's lefty non-wealthy, well that's just fine and dandy like sour candy.

Friday, March 1, 2013

Right-Wing Charts Are Always Fun

From the fine folks at RedState:

Lots of things to love about this graph, like Nazism/Fascism and communism being right next to each other, and therefore being essentially the same thing, instead of being opposing ideologies. But my personal favorite is the Republicans Party being a center left party. I mean, I suppose you could possibly make an argument that based on the graph that's measuring "government", Republicans support government involvement in religion, and things like expanding the police state. Yet, I somehow doubt those are things that the RedStaters would consider as more government.