I am really, and I do mean REALLY sick of whiny, brain-dead liberals who keep crying that Republicans are the party of the rich fat cats and corporations, and buy elections. Here then are a few FACTS for a change:
Richest Americans, in order:
Bill Gates (liberal)
Warren Buffett (liberal)
Larry Ellison (liberal)
Koch brothers (conservative)
Christy Walton (conservative)
George Soros (liberal/socialist)
Sheldon Adelson (conservative)
Jim Walton (conservative)
Alice Walton (conservative)
S Robson Walton (unknown)
Michael Bloomberg (liberal/progressive)
Jeff Bezos (liberal)
Mark Zuckerberg (liberal)
Sergey Brin (liberal/socialist)
Larry Page (liberal/socialist)
9 of the 15 are liberals, giving to liberal causes and politicians. So all this whining crap from liberals about how "all the billionaires" are "right wing" and "buying elections" is just that - CRAP!
Just by looking at the top 3, whose wealth dwarfs everyone elses, you get the sense that liberals, not conservatives, are buying politicians. And of the 6 conservatives, only 2 have contributed a million or more. Of the 9 liberals, 6 have contributed over a million.
And in Congress, John Kerry (D) is by far the wealthiest. Not far behind are Jane Harmon (D). Jay Rockefeller (D), Mark Warner (D), Jaris Polis (D), Frank Lautenberg (D) and Diane Feinstein (D). In fact, 7 of the richest 10 Congressmen are Democrats.
So, the next time some lying, whiny little liberal tries to tell you that Republicans are the party of the rich, or trying to protect the rich, you can now hit them with facts they will not want to swallow. Maybe they will choke on them!
/
Friday, August 3, 2012
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Bucky Balls and the Nanny State
First, a couple of facts:
* In the United States, 1,946 children (0-18) died in fires in 2000
* 121 children have died from suffocation from ballons in the 15 years between 1973 and 1988 according to a report by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission
Recently, the same Consumer Product Safety idiots have decided that the company that makes BUCKY BALLS should stop making them because they are a threat to children. Since their inception, a grand total of 12 kids have swallowed them.
It does not matter to the CPSC that there are adequate warning labels all over the product packaging and their website stating emphatically they should be kept away from children.
Nor does it seem hypocritical to the CPSC that every year, 39,000 kids swallow government minted coins - but they don't seem to be trying to stop the minting of coinage.
This stinks a lot of partisan nit[icking - like the makers of Gibson guitars, being penalized by the government without ever having been charged, simply because the company supports Republicans - well, it just stinks of partisan politics - the kind that only the Democrats seem to participate in, in any great number.
The government needs to BUTT OUT. They are csupposed to be providing an environment that is conducive to business, not one that stifles business. The latter is what fascist governments do.
/
* In the United States, 1,946 children (0-18) died in fires in 2000
* 121 children have died from suffocation from ballons in the 15 years between 1973 and 1988 according to a report by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission
Recently, the same Consumer Product Safety idiots have decided that the company that makes BUCKY BALLS should stop making them because they are a threat to children. Since their inception, a grand total of 12 kids have swallowed them.
It does not matter to the CPSC that there are adequate warning labels all over the product packaging and their website stating emphatically they should be kept away from children.
Nor does it seem hypocritical to the CPSC that every year, 39,000 kids swallow government minted coins - but they don't seem to be trying to stop the minting of coinage.
This stinks a lot of partisan nit[icking - like the makers of Gibson guitars, being penalized by the government without ever having been charged, simply because the company supports Republicans - well, it just stinks of partisan politics - the kind that only the Democrats seem to participate in, in any great number.
The government needs to BUTT OUT. They are csupposed to be providing an environment that is conducive to business, not one that stifles business. The latter is what fascist governments do.
/
Can The Left Get Any Loonier?
One HuffPost reader made the following comment, and it shows just how misinformed these miscreants are:
"Recent report shows well over 21 trillion dollars (yes, with a T) is being held in offshore accounts by America's corporations and super rich to avoid paying taxes. Those are the folks the GOP is protecting and trying to give yet another tax break (welfare). A scandal of truly epic proportions. But the Right wants to turn your attention to what they call the freeloading poor, whose taxes Romney plans to raise. You want a positive change vote for Obama and a Dem Congress. "
Let's do some checking on this load of bull. First, most of those "corporations and super rich" are Democrats. And many wealthy Democrats in our Congress have offshore accounts. Check out Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and John Kerry. In an earlier blog I reported how 8 of the 10 top corporations in America donate almost exclusively to Democrats.
As to the "GOP protecting the rich", that is pure nonsense. There is a valid reason for keeping taxes low on businesses and the wealthy - they are the ONLY ones who can create jobs. But they won't if we keep picking their pockets. The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, thanks to Democrats, and that is the primary reason why businesses pull up stakes and go overseas, and the biggest reason citizens use offshore accounts. People object to being robbed. The fact remains that 87% of ALL income taxes are paid by only the top 20% of income earners. I'd say that shows they already pay MORE than their fair share. But not to liberals - they think the rich should support everyone else. Republicans believe that people should be independent and have personal responsibility for their own choices. The only ones we should be supporting are those who, through no fault of their own, CANNOT support themselves. The operative phrase is "through no fault of their own".
As for giving the wealthy "yet another tax break", there is no bill that is proposed for doing that. The GOP wants the CURRENT tax rates to remain for now. That is not a "tax break" for anyone. It is simply a refusal to make the already exhorbitant taxes even higher, during a recession.
As to Romney planning to raise taxes on the poor, that, too, is nonsense. He has not proposed any such thing. As usual, the nuts on the left will tell any lie to push their agenda, like Harry Reid telling the lie that Romney never paid taxes in a decade. He has no proof, and knows it is not true, but he makes the claim anyway, to smear the opposition. It is the same smear tactic used by Democrats in every election.
As to the "freeloading poor" - on that he may be correct. Many of them ARE freeloaders. They CAN work, but refuse to. I know a drug dealer who drives a Mercedes but collects welfare. Another who gets young girls pregnant then takes half their welfare benefits - he is rich while they live in squalor with his illegitimate kids. And in America, the "poor" are not poor at all - most have color TV, iPads, cellphones etc. Not exactly poor. And even the middle class pays no taxes - 49% of all working Americans pay ZERO taxes. Now tell me - just exactly how can anyone call THAT fair?
And finally, about that idiots final comment - we TRIED a Democrat president with a Democrat Congress for two full years, and this is where it got us - $16 trillion in debt, 42 months of unemployment over 8%, home values in the gutter, 15,000+ new and costly regulations that restrict our freedoms and no budget passed in three years. So, if change is what a person wants, then that would have to mean a REPUBLICAN president and Congress.
/
"Recent report shows well over 21 trillion dollars (yes, with a T) is being held in offshore accounts by America's corporations and super rich to avoid paying taxes. Those are the folks the GOP is protecting and trying to give yet another tax break (welfare). A scandal of truly epic proportions. But the Right wants to turn your attention to what they call the freeloading poor, whose taxes Romney plans to raise. You want a positive change vote for Obama and a Dem Congress. "
Let's do some checking on this load of bull. First, most of those "corporations and super rich" are Democrats. And many wealthy Democrats in our Congress have offshore accounts. Check out Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and John Kerry. In an earlier blog I reported how 8 of the 10 top corporations in America donate almost exclusively to Democrats.
As to the "GOP protecting the rich", that is pure nonsense. There is a valid reason for keeping taxes low on businesses and the wealthy - they are the ONLY ones who can create jobs. But they won't if we keep picking their pockets. The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, thanks to Democrats, and that is the primary reason why businesses pull up stakes and go overseas, and the biggest reason citizens use offshore accounts. People object to being robbed. The fact remains that 87% of ALL income taxes are paid by only the top 20% of income earners. I'd say that shows they already pay MORE than their fair share. But not to liberals - they think the rich should support everyone else. Republicans believe that people should be independent and have personal responsibility for their own choices. The only ones we should be supporting are those who, through no fault of their own, CANNOT support themselves. The operative phrase is "through no fault of their own".
As for giving the wealthy "yet another tax break", there is no bill that is proposed for doing that. The GOP wants the CURRENT tax rates to remain for now. That is not a "tax break" for anyone. It is simply a refusal to make the already exhorbitant taxes even higher, during a recession.
As to Romney planning to raise taxes on the poor, that, too, is nonsense. He has not proposed any such thing. As usual, the nuts on the left will tell any lie to push their agenda, like Harry Reid telling the lie that Romney never paid taxes in a decade. He has no proof, and knows it is not true, but he makes the claim anyway, to smear the opposition. It is the same smear tactic used by Democrats in every election.
As to the "freeloading poor" - on that he may be correct. Many of them ARE freeloaders. They CAN work, but refuse to. I know a drug dealer who drives a Mercedes but collects welfare. Another who gets young girls pregnant then takes half their welfare benefits - he is rich while they live in squalor with his illegitimate kids. And in America, the "poor" are not poor at all - most have color TV, iPads, cellphones etc. Not exactly poor. And even the middle class pays no taxes - 49% of all working Americans pay ZERO taxes. Now tell me - just exactly how can anyone call THAT fair?
And finally, about that idiots final comment - we TRIED a Democrat president with a Democrat Congress for two full years, and this is where it got us - $16 trillion in debt, 42 months of unemployment over 8%, home values in the gutter, 15,000+ new and costly regulations that restrict our freedoms and no budget passed in three years. So, if change is what a person wants, then that would have to mean a REPUBLICAN president and Congress.
/
Harry Reid Turns Constitution Upside Down - Again
Over the last few days, Senate Majority Leader (i.e. the Great Deceiver) has been telling lies about Mitt Romney even though he has absolutely no evidence that there is any truth in what he says.
Dirty Harry says that Romney did not pay any taxes for 10 years. Then he says, if that is not true, then Romney needs to prove it is untrue by providing his tax records since Lord knows when.
I guess Dirty Harry, being a liberal moron, has forgotten that here in America the law of the land is "innocent until proved guilty." So, Sir Harry, it is not up to Romney to prove anything (we already KNOW you are a pathological liar), rather, it is up to YOU to prove him guilty. So do so, or shut your lying mouth.
Whatsamatta, Reid - doncha like the Constitution?
We all know what is going on - the Democrats want Romney to give up more tax records in the hope that they can find dirt on him. To get Romney to give up those records, Reid and his evil minions have decided to use lies and slander. They figure if Romney does not give up the records, then it would look like Reid's accusations are true, and if Romney does give up the records, then they can find some stupid little thing they can spin and blow out of proportion. They win either way.
But they win by lies and deceit, and those are tools of Satan. But it appears to be the tools of choice for modern Democrats.
/
Dirty Harry says that Romney did not pay any taxes for 10 years. Then he says, if that is not true, then Romney needs to prove it is untrue by providing his tax records since Lord knows when.
I guess Dirty Harry, being a liberal moron, has forgotten that here in America the law of the land is "innocent until proved guilty." So, Sir Harry, it is not up to Romney to prove anything (we already KNOW you are a pathological liar), rather, it is up to YOU to prove him guilty. So do so, or shut your lying mouth.
Whatsamatta, Reid - doncha like the Constitution?
We all know what is going on - the Democrats want Romney to give up more tax records in the hope that they can find dirt on him. To get Romney to give up those records, Reid and his evil minions have decided to use lies and slander. They figure if Romney does not give up the records, then it would look like Reid's accusations are true, and if Romney does give up the records, then they can find some stupid little thing they can spin and blow out of proportion. They win either way.
But they win by lies and deceit, and those are tools of Satan. But it appears to be the tools of choice for modern Democrats.
/
No JFK Democrats Anymore?
I remember the race between Nixon and JFK. In those days, Democrats appeared to be reasonable, sane and stoiod for American values. One of JFK's most famous lines was, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." But Democrats no longer believe that - they believe that the people should depend upon government, and government should provide everything - a nanny state.
Here are other differences between yesterday's honorable Democrats and those in office today...
1) Harry Reid would never have gotten away with starting unfounded rumors about Romney in an effort to plant nasty seeds of doubt in voters
2) Tom Menino, Edwin Lee and Rahm Emanuel would have been ostracized and booted from office for suggesting they would prevent a business from buolding in their cities just because the owner holds different values. Democrats of old would never have approved of squelching the right to free speech. That is fascism - "You can say whatever you want as long as it agrees with me."
3) Democrats of old would never have told successful people that they are only successful due to the actions of government, and not because they earned it, as opposed to what Elizabeth Warren and Barak Obama are claiming
4) Democrats of old would never have thought about punishing successful people simply because they are successful.
5) Democrats of old would never have considered making their cities or states as sanctuaries for illegal immigrants, or refuse to cooperate with federal agencies
I could go on, and you know it. Everyone who thinks about it would realize that the Democratic party no longer stands for very many American values. Yet, more than 40% of Americans still hold to the Democrat party, even though the party has deserted them and their values. As an example, African Americans vote almost exclusively Democrat even though the Democratic party is backing gay marriage and unemployment in among blacks rises way above the norm under Democrat control of government. And many in labor vote Democrat even though it was the Democrats who created the financial mess we are in with their acquiescence to unions for over-burdening the system with excessive benefits that are now bankrupting cities.
Detroit has been controlled by Democrats for over half a century - looik at it! Same with Chicago, the most corrupt city in America. And look at California, run into bankruptcy by a democrat-controlled legislature that only wants to spend, spend, spend. Cities like Stockton forced into bankruptcy because the Democrats authorized too many benefits for unions.
I would think that anyone calling themselves a Democrat today might want to take the time to re-evaluate what their party actually stands for. Frankly, if I were a Democrat, as Ronald Reagan once was, I would do what Reagan did - run, not walk away from the party.
It is no longer the party of my parents. It is no longer the party of the working people, which it now enslaves with welfare, food stamps and other entitlements designed to make a person dependent upon government, and therefore subservient to government.
/
Here are other differences between yesterday's honorable Democrats and those in office today...
1) Harry Reid would never have gotten away with starting unfounded rumors about Romney in an effort to plant nasty seeds of doubt in voters
2) Tom Menino, Edwin Lee and Rahm Emanuel would have been ostracized and booted from office for suggesting they would prevent a business from buolding in their cities just because the owner holds different values. Democrats of old would never have approved of squelching the right to free speech. That is fascism - "You can say whatever you want as long as it agrees with me."
3) Democrats of old would never have told successful people that they are only successful due to the actions of government, and not because they earned it, as opposed to what Elizabeth Warren and Barak Obama are claiming
4) Democrats of old would never have thought about punishing successful people simply because they are successful.
5) Democrats of old would never have considered making their cities or states as sanctuaries for illegal immigrants, or refuse to cooperate with federal agencies
I could go on, and you know it. Everyone who thinks about it would realize that the Democratic party no longer stands for very many American values. Yet, more than 40% of Americans still hold to the Democrat party, even though the party has deserted them and their values. As an example, African Americans vote almost exclusively Democrat even though the Democratic party is backing gay marriage and unemployment in among blacks rises way above the norm under Democrat control of government. And many in labor vote Democrat even though it was the Democrats who created the financial mess we are in with their acquiescence to unions for over-burdening the system with excessive benefits that are now bankrupting cities.
Detroit has been controlled by Democrats for over half a century - looik at it! Same with Chicago, the most corrupt city in America. And look at California, run into bankruptcy by a democrat-controlled legislature that only wants to spend, spend, spend. Cities like Stockton forced into bankruptcy because the Democrats authorized too many benefits for unions.
I would think that anyone calling themselves a Democrat today might want to take the time to re-evaluate what their party actually stands for. Frankly, if I were a Democrat, as Ronald Reagan once was, I would do what Reagan did - run, not walk away from the party.
It is no longer the party of my parents. It is no longer the party of the working people, which it now enslaves with welfare, food stamps and other entitlements designed to make a person dependent upon government, and therefore subservient to government.
/
Another Law Obama Does Not Want To Obey
Decades ago, Congress passed a law that says if a layoff is pending due to a foreseeable event, the employer is required by law to give the employee(s) at least 60 days notice. After all, those people deserve to have enough time to make plans for the loss of their jobs.
Today, many military equipment employers are faced with thousands of pending layoffs on January 1st due to the massive defense cuts coming to the Pentagon and military. By law, they will have to report those layoffs by October. Talk about an October Surprise!
President Obama wants to hide those layoffs, rather than have them advertised just before the election. He says the law should be ignored, in order to protect HIMSELF, and let those thousands of employees fend for themselves.
Is this REALLY the kind of "leader" America wants?
/
Today, many military equipment employers are faced with thousands of pending layoffs on January 1st due to the massive defense cuts coming to the Pentagon and military. By law, they will have to report those layoffs by October. Talk about an October Surprise!
President Obama wants to hide those layoffs, rather than have them advertised just before the election. He says the law should be ignored, in order to protect HIMSELF, and let those thousands of employees fend for themselves.
Is this REALLY the kind of "leader" America wants?
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)