Archive of entries posted on 25th January 2012

Nuke the News: The State of the Union Is We Have a Useless Leader

Posted by on

* I’m in the New York Post again!

Yeah, I know I’ve been having a column with them about once a week, but aren’t you amazed each time? Anyway, this one is on why it’s good to have a food stamp president and that government dependency is just a good idea.

Really, who would you rather take care of you? Cold, self-interested individuals or a warm, caring government?

* Obama gave his State of Union speech last night. I did not watch it. I’m paid enough for that. Sounds like it was a basically a rehash of all his previous ideas like they were brand new ideas. It’s like we’ve tried a little of the same and that didn’t work, so Obama’s solution is we need even more of the same. Plus, Obama added some more harping on fairness.

Yes, really; a rich Democrat whining about fairness. How innovative. It really is the party of new ideas.

And isn’t that just what the economy needs: more whining about fairness? No one even pretends taxing the rich will help the economy, but the Democrat can’t get off that because whining is more important to them than success as a nation.

Barack Obama is not a serious person and apparently has no intentions of ever being so. People keep talking about how weak the Republican field is, but our multiple bad choice sure beats the Democrats single horrible choice. We aren’t going to be forced to run a proven failure for president, so advantage us.

* One thing I’ve been wondering. With all the focus on the evil millionaires, is anyone going to point out how Obama is rich. And it really does seems unfair how rich he is considering he has no useful skills and has produced no goods or services his entire life. If Obama really wants to attack our economic system as unfair, shouldn’t he hold himself up as the ultimate example? “You’re working hard every day and barely getting by. I’m completely useless and only had previously held made up jobs like community organizer and yet somehow ended up rich. Obviously, the system is rigged. I won’t rest until we live in a fair country — a place where a useless person like me lives destitute on the street instead of playing golf every other day.” As I’ve said before, we’d take the left more seriously if they held themselves up as the examples of the ills they don’t like, but that would take self-awareness so it’s not going to happen.

* According to his tax returns, Romney gave over 15% of his income to charity in 2010-2011. And what are people upset at? Not more of that was taken by the government to be wasted by idiots in DC.

Looking at Obama back in 2000-2004 before much of a spotlight was on him, Obama gave less than one percent to charity. You know, because he’s a liberal and his charity is to urge the government to seize other people’s money. And before Biden was vice president, he gave an average of $369 dollars a year to charity. Come on! These are the same people complaining about the greedy rich, but they cling to their own money more tightly than anyone else. Where is the press on this extreme hypocrisy? Obviously anytime the left is complaining about greed in others, it’s nothing but projection. And now we know where they get this impulse for taxation — they know how greedy they are and can’t imagine someone giving up money to help others unless it is forcibly taken. And in the end, what’s more greedy than only spending other people’s money to help the needy?

* Wisdom of the Day from Fred Thompson:

Warren Buffett now says his offer to help pay down the natl debt was merely “symbolic.” Ah… sorta like an Obama “stimulus” program.

Random Thoughts

Posted by on

If a candidate’s tax returns reveal he didn’t do everything he could to avoid paying taxes, he should be tossed out of the race as a moron.

So the left are really going to argue that Romney sending $6.2 million of his money to Washington to die was too little?

Is Obama’s big plan to get the economy moving that the rich should pay more taxes? Can someone explain how that helps things?

The incumbent is the least serious of the candidates.

I’ve seen none of the movies that were nominated for best picture or had a best actor nomination.

So will the Rand Paul incident and the White House defense of the TSA allow us to portray Obama as the president of junk touching?

Hate how women lie. I once dated one claiming to be a supermodel, but she was just a regular model. Being in Victoria Secret’s catalog doesn’t by itself make you super!

Money that goes to the morons in DC is dead money; it will no longer help anyone. We want a better economy, then we need less money stuck in DC.

Someone talking higher taxes right now it not a serious person.

“They held a SOTU watch party. It was a murder suicide.”

So what does Intrade say are the odds Obama will break down crying halfway through the SOTU and admit he has no idea what he’s doing?

Wow. A rich Democrat is going to go on TV and whine about “fairness.” How innovative.

“We’ve tried some of the same and it didn’t work. That means we need even more of the same!”

Obama is quite rich. Can you name one thing of any use to anybody he ever did to earn that money?

If Obama wants to point out the flaws in our economic system, he should point out the fact that someone like him is wealthy as an example.

Obama should hold himself up as the ultimate example of unfairness. “If some as useless as me is rich, obviously the system is rigged.”

Do you think there will be whining about fairness in the SOTU? I think the key to fixing the economy is more whining about fairness.

Why work hard to better your own finances when you can whine about how much someone else has?