1. El Salvador's Barack Obama - Communist and Former CNN Employee
A most interesting development. It is good to see the Red March continues across Latin America, comrades! Possibly the only capitalist nation left south of our border (or, as some say, anywhere in the Western Hemisphere) is now Brazil - they just recently began expanding their offshore drilling, and this is the country with the highest application of biofuel in the world? In any case, this is no bullpoop - yes, Maruicio Funes, former CNN International correspondent and candidate for President of El Salvador is the current leader of the same Communist regime that the Reagan Administration fought back in the '80s, and he considers himself to be "El Salvador's Barack Obama." As the piece points out, he's even co-opted "si se puede." If you're curious, you can check out "Chairman" Funes on Facebook.
2. Barack Obama - Worst Gift Giving President In History?
This ain't political - let's lay out the facts and you can judge for yourself. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is a peculiar man to be sure, but he displayed deep consideration and thought in his array of gifts to the 44th President of the United States upon their first diplomatic meeting.
Please consider the following. The first gift - an ornamental desk-pen holder crafted from the timbers of a 19th century British anti-slaving ship, the HMS Gannet, which was subsequently renamed the HMS President. (That is such an amazing and meaningful gift not just to Barack Obama but to our nation, that I can barely stand it). The second gift - the framed commission for the HMS Resolute, a ship that our own U.S. Navy towed from the Arctic to London for the British. The same boat whose timbers were fashioned into the desk of President Rutherford B. Hayes, a gift from Queen Victoria, which is the desk that currently sits in the Oval Office. The third gift - a first edition of Sir Martin Gilbert's 7-volume biography of Sir Winston Churchill.
President Obama's gift in return? A 25-DVD collection of America's greatest films.
C'mon. Prime Minister Brown could have picked that up from Wal-Mart on the way to Andrews AFB. Barack Obama, what the hell is wrong with you? The British press is aflame with insult, and how could you blame them? This has nothing to do with politics - I have to say, I'm ashamed at that one. God bless the British and their sense of history... I can't think of another nation whose people could conceive of such thoughtful things to present to our President, much of which has to do with our long history together. We're close to the British and as far as diplomacy goes, in their eyes this was the diplomatic version of a glove-slap. So I'll diss the President in British fashion - in my view, Obama "bottled it!"
Joshua's Journal
My Podcast Link
03/09/2009 20:15 #48001
Potpourri03/06/2009 12:06 #47969
Provocative Journal TitlesIf we're going to rig our blog views by using provocative journal titles, I'd rather it be down and dirty. For example, I think (e:carey) has held back quite a bit. (e:hodown) on the other hand, now that's what I'm talking about. You have to take advantage of the fact that horny guys only think in syllables of two or three at the same time. In the heat of the moment guys pretty much think like ogres with throbbing loins. If any man could screw while doing a crossword puzzle, I'd want to cut him to see if there was a robot underneath that flesh. So remember ladies - keep it simple, just like always, and don't be shy with the vulgarity. Your journal will be top in no time!
03/05/2009 12:51 #47956
Live Prop 8 Debate Video02/26/2009 18:44 #47897
Norman GentleThere is a place for Norman Gentle in this guy's heart - and there has GOT to be a place for Norman Gentle in America.
I love the mad ones, gotta say.
I love the mad ones, gotta say.
02/26/2009 10:46 #47891
The 2% Illusion - Taxes and YouExtraordinary Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, that I think all of you should read.
The general premise is that it will be impossible to tax the rich high enough in order to pay for Obama's spending concerns. I've been telling you guys this for a while - if taxes are going up for the rich, trust me, your tax hike will soon be following. Not to mention 45-55% of small business revenue. The article also mentions how the cap and trade idea will yield yet another steep de facto tax increase for all energy users.
The general premise is that it will be impossible to tax the rich high enough in order to pay for Obama's spending concerns. I've been telling you guys this for a while - if taxes are going up for the rich, trust me, your tax hike will soon be following. Not to mention 45-55% of small business revenue. The article also mentions how the cap and trade idea will yield yet another steep de facto tax increase for all energy users.
joshua - 02/26/09 14:32
"Subsidizing the rich" - James, they pay most of the taxes. The "poor" couldn't possibly ever subsidize the rich - it is a financial impossibility. That point aside, what do you mean by "equitable" when the rich pay a vast portion of the taxes, and always have? I'm begging though - please don't tow the economic justice line... it is not and never has been evil or wrong to be rich, and generally speaking this is the default attitude towards the affluent amongst the left. Another tax that will remain - the death tax. This is one of the most immoral taxes in human history.
The Iraq money still won't cover the debt, James. Even if things go swimmingly and perfectly well, current budget estimates are praying to Lord Jeebus for 'only' a $533B deficit by 2013. The budget is essentially banking on a swift recovery, and if there is none, those deficit estimates will be way, way off.
I will at least give Obama credit for including the Iraq money in the budget finally. Take a look at the chart on the top of Drudge today, which indicates what the budget deficit will be, and where it may be revised to. Realistically this is a skewed chart because the deficits prior did not include the Iraq money... it is better and more honest the way Obama is doing it.
The article was right on the money. Because you pay attention and keep an even keel on this stuff, you certainly understand that everyones taxes would be going up, but Obama told you and everyone else that the middle class would not get a tax increase. Given what Obama wants to do, that is an impossibility and he's telling people lies by stating that the middle class is safe. Another issue that nobody is talking about - $56 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. That is going to be impossible to deal with without extraordinarily oppressive taxation, severe cuts in benefits, or some combo of the two. The truth is that not only will taxes be going up for the middle class, but in fact consumption will be more expensive as a result of cap and trade legislation. Energy prices affect everything in our economy.
Also, a lot of this money being spent by the stimulus won't be temporary as they claim it will be. Do you really think that the Democrats will double education spending 'temporarily,' or expand unemployment benefits and welfare 'temporarily,' or raise taxes 'temporarily?' More fuel for the middle class tax fire.
Nobody is talking about monetization of the debt, which is another strategy that will may occur to a great extent anyway, and will cause severe inflation.
"Subsidizing the rich" - James, they pay most of the taxes. The "poor" couldn't possibly ever subsidize the rich - it is a financial impossibility. That point aside, what do you mean by "equitable" when the rich pay a vast portion of the taxes, and always have? I'm begging though - please don't tow the economic justice line... it is not and never has been evil or wrong to be rich, and generally speaking this is the default attitude towards the affluent amongst the left. Another tax that will remain - the death tax. This is one of the most immoral taxes in human history.
The Iraq money still won't cover the debt, James. Even if things go swimmingly and perfectly well, current budget estimates are praying to Lord Jeebus for 'only' a $533B deficit by 2013. The budget is essentially banking on a swift recovery, and if there is none, those deficit estimates will be way, way off.
I will at least give Obama credit for including the Iraq money in the budget finally. Take a look at the chart on the top of Drudge today, which indicates what the budget deficit will be, and where it may be revised to. Realistically this is a skewed chart because the deficits prior did not include the Iraq money... it is better and more honest the way Obama is doing it.
The article was right on the money. Because you pay attention and keep an even keel on this stuff, you certainly understand that everyones taxes would be going up, but Obama told you and everyone else that the middle class would not get a tax increase. Given what Obama wants to do, that is an impossibility and he's telling people lies by stating that the middle class is safe. Another issue that nobody is talking about - $56 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. That is going to be impossible to deal with without extraordinarily oppressive taxation, severe cuts in benefits, or some combo of the two. The truth is that not only will taxes be going up for the middle class, but in fact consumption will be more expensive as a result of cap and trade legislation. Energy prices affect everything in our economy.
Also, a lot of this money being spent by the stimulus won't be temporary as they claim it will be. Do you really think that the Democrats will double education spending 'temporarily,' or expand unemployment benefits and welfare 'temporarily,' or raise taxes 'temporarily?' More fuel for the middle class tax fire.
Nobody is talking about monetization of the debt, which is another strategy that will may occur to a great extent anyway, and will cause severe inflation.
james - 02/26/09 13:01
Whoever wrote that article failed to realize that most of the money used to pay off the debt will come from money now being spent on Iraq.
Those of us who live in NYS live in a regressive tax structure. Obama letting the Bush tax cuts expire goes a long way towards a more equitable tax structure.
Besides, you argue that if we tax the rich, the rest of us will follow. However, it is impossible not not tax the rich and not have our taxes increase if more money is needed to pay for the stimulus. Either way, there is more taxes. And if given a choice between the two I would rather not subsidize the rich by carrying an added tax alone.
Whoever wrote that article failed to realize that most of the money used to pay off the debt will come from money now being spent on Iraq.
Those of us who live in NYS live in a regressive tax structure. Obama letting the Bush tax cuts expire goes a long way towards a more equitable tax structure.
Besides, you argue that if we tax the rich, the rest of us will follow. However, it is impossible not not tax the rich and not have our taxes increase if more money is needed to pay for the stimulus. Either way, there is more taxes. And if given a choice between the two I would rather not subsidize the rich by carrying an added tax alone.
This reminds me of something else that maybe I shouldn't bring up. Am I remembering correctly that (e:Alison) used to name her posts something and then you would read them and the tittle often had nothing to do with what she wrote or am I thinking of someone else?
yeh, I've often used double entendre post titles, but just for laughs, rankings matter not. That's a recent thing, right?
but maybe one day I wont hold back, be less publicly conservative. Hmmm, something to consider. If I get all wild on estrip, I owe it all to you! :)
I can't believe I'm encouraging anybody to be more cunning... haha.
Thanks for the support Josh :)