Magical Thinking in High Places

by Rich Miles

Have you ever had something - anything, any topic - turn into a virtual obsession? Your mind latches onto a thought, an idea, a question, and you just can't let go of it?

It can be really annoying to the normal mind (the abnormal mind takes this in stride - it's the way things always are for lots of mental patients). But quite often, you just turn the issue over and over and over, with no progress on an answer or resolution for the longest kind of time.

But then, when you DO finally reach something like an answer, it's sort of like an orgasm - a great rush and release of anxiety and tension, and a feeling of real accomplishment in the realm of thought.

Well, I just had one of those. Let me elaborate:

Ever since George W. Bush became a national figure back in late '99, into 2000, I have wondered something. In fact, there were lots of things I wondered about him, but there was this one main thing I couldn't come to grips with, to wit:

How could George W. Bush stand in front of a camera, or in front of a crowd of at least putatively intelligent people, and LIE HIS ASS OFF to them, repeatedly, and in great detail sometimes, and just without any apparent shame or embarrassment - just LIE, say things that were, to most normal human beings, obviously not factual. I mean, how could he do that, day in and day out, and never or rarely get caught in his own lies, and never show any contrition for doing so, and on the occasions when he was caught, how could he simply say that the catchor was wrong, that he either didn't say that, or if he did say it then it was true? How could he do that? Most of us can't, at least not for that long and with that much conviction. We may be able to lie, but not many of us can keep it up for that long without either tripping up on our lies, or having our listeners laugh us off the podium etc.

So how does he do it, I asked myself? And just last night, after he's been out of the White House for nearly two years, and after he's written a book that has served as a forum for even more of his lies, it came to me: Bush lies so effectively because he doesn't know he's lying!

And the reason he doesn't know he's lying is that he is a victim - or perhaps practitioner would be more accurate - of a psychological disorder/phenomenon known in the psych biz as magical thinking.

Yup, it's a real phenomenon - though to refer to this particular syndrome as "real" is almost laughably ironic - and despite this rather lengthy intro to the actual thesis of this essay, I encourage, in fact implore you to read this Wikipedia explanation of magical thinking.

OK, ya back from that? Well, I want to offer this shorter layman's definition of magical thinking: It's when you think that a thing is true simply because you think it's true, without any proof or evidence or reason. It's sorta like what the Xtians call "faith" - which, if one reads the Wikipedia piece above, is exactly what is defined.

But back to the original premise: that GWB engages in magical thinking. How else to explain how Shrub could completely ignore all or most of his military advisors, and insist that we invade Iraq? How to explain his insistence that taxes be severely cut in wartime?

How to explain his new book, and the disagreement of several world leaders with the content of the book? How to explain how he could so thoroughly balls up the recovery of New Orleans after the hurricane, yet believe he was doing a good job at it?

The list could go on forever, but the main premise is: Bush thinks things that no one else in the whole world (or at least no one who isn't as deranged as he is) would believe.

And he was the leader of the most powerful nation in the world for 8 years! And as a result, it's my premise that we are no longer the most powerful nation in the world. We are in decline, and although I'm sure many Republicans and some Democrats will disagree, it's my contention that the decline is directly and specifically George W. Bush's fault. Certainly the Dept. of Homeland Security, one of the hugest money-wasters in the history of the WORLD, is Bush's fault. The ineffectiveness of Homeland Security not only could be predicted, it WAS predicted, by several congresspersons including Russ Feingold (his senatorial career R.I.P.)

But Bush thought, magically, that a single bureaucracy encompassing all the OTHER existing bureaucracies would somehow be more efficient and workable. I think evidence since has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that this has not and is not so.

No, folks, America is falling apart, and the bulk of the reason for it is the 8 years of GWB's "reign". Even now that Bush is out of technical power, he still has influence over the management of our nation. The new book is proof of that - some people are claiming it's a guide for the new century, and god forbid if that turns out to be an activated thought.

But anyway - now that you're an expert on magical thinking, re-examine the past 10 years, most especially that 8-year Bush interregnum, and see if it doesn't all make more sense if viewed in that light.

Sadly, if you're a sensible person, I think it will.

Is it possible? Could we get him?

by Rich Miles

Here's a statement that will cause eyebrows to raise in some quarters of New York City, and perhaps elsewhere:

Jerry Nadler is my hero!

Jerrold (Jerry) Nadler is a short, fat, not terribly handsome little guy originally from Brooklyn, and now the U.S. Representative for, arguably, the most expensive strip of real estate in the United States, and certainly the most expensive in the eastern half of the country: the West Side of Manhattan. His district includes some other areas into Brooklyn and elsewhere, and the 9/11 Ground Zero is in his district.

But that's not why Jerry Nadler is my hero. He's my hero because he is chair of a judiciary subcommittee, and HE WANTS GEORGE W. BUSH PROSECUTED FOR WAR CRIMES!!

And that fact gladdens my heart.

Not that it won't take a lot for this pipe dream ever to come to pass. Not that there isn't a very great chance that it will NEVER come to pass.

No, what makes my endorphins flow in this instance is that a Member of the U.S. Congress WANTS this, and is quite happy to say so in a highly public and highly visible/audible manner.

Way back in February of '06, I wrote a piece called Time to Set a Precedent, in which I propounded that it was time we put the president of the United States in jail, just to prove that we can, so the future sonsabitches in that office are aware that they can't get away with just anything, and that there are very real and personal consequences to their actions. I re-propound that piece today because George W. Bush needs to go to prison, and his own words in his recent book where he admits to ordering waterboarding on a U.S. prisoner, should be used against him.

And to attempt to come full circle, that's what Jerry Nadler wants: to hoist Bush on his own petard, use his own words to prosecute him, and put him in prison.

And despite a number of obstacles to this plan, not least among them the fact that the U.S. Attorney General refuses to do it, I think we ought to go for it. It couldn't happen to a nastier ex-president. And despite my living nowhere near where such a trial would be held, I'd volunteer for jury duty. They wouldn't take me, because I have already made up my mind, but I'd volunteer nonetheless.

And that, in a nutshell, is why Jerry Nadler is my hero!

Remember, they got Al Capone for tax evasion. Maybe we can get Shrub for the unpardonable crime of writing a book.

I'm back, reluctantly

by Rich Miles

Hewwo, tonstant weaduh - please pardon my absence since the election. My heart has truly been in pain since then. I haven't been able to collect my thoughts or assemble them on the page since then.

But I'll try now. I guess. I'm so demoralized, not so much at what the repugs will do - it's well-known that they're going to fuck up the country as much as possible. No, what really shatters me is how insufferably stupid my fellow Americans and especially Kentuckians have become in a mere two years. I mean, is it really possible that a) most people don't recognize how badly the 8 years of GWB fucked up the country, and b) they also don't recognize that handing power back to the repugs so soon (or really, ever) is just the perfect way to bend the country over and fuck it bloody?

I mean, how can you people do this? How can a majority of Kentuckians choose the clown Rand Paul over Jack Conway, who at least showed some seriousness about him during the campaign? How can a majority have chosen Paul, because his "religious beliefs" were attacked? I mean, when did it become a given that ANY candidate's stated religious beliefs MUST be believed and not challenged no matter what actions he may take in opposition to those stated beliefs? Why is it not possible for a person to LIE ABOUT HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS? I mean, really. Nobody believes US that automatically. Why should Rand Paul be believed automatically?

SO Jack was supposed to be ashamed of what he said about Paul's religion, JUST BECAUSE RAND PAUL SAID SO!!

I don't think so. And in fact, Paul's actions in the campaign and since suggest, once again for me, that if this is how a born-again Christian behaves in the world, then I want nothing whatever to do with being a born-again Christian.

I rather expect Rand Paul to resign as senator when he discovers how little senators earn relative to self-certified eye doctors. If he doesn't, it's a sure sign that senators are robbing us more than we thought.

Because Rand Paul may love power, but I have the distinct impression that he loves money more.

And I'm absolutely certain that he's an asshole.

Now challenge me on that observation, SENATOR Paul. I am as trustworthy as you are. I am as religious as you are. I am as worthy of having my morals accepted unquestioned as you are.

I am no more a lying m-----f----- than you are. So if I get questioned (and I do), then so do you. So shut the eff up, you little weasel

I wandered on this one a bit. I'll try harder next time.

How to restore the Democratic majority

by Rich Miles

“It is absolutely critical that you go out and vote,” Mr. Obama said here in Philadelphia. “This election is not just going to set the stage for the next two years. It’s going to set the stage for the next 10, the next 20.”

Well, lots of political rhetoric can be disputed and turned on its head - but without claiming to be able to see into the future, I think we could reasonably say that the above is a true statement.

I'm grieving already, even though the election isn't for two more days. I mean, I know pundits and prognosticators aren't always right, and they could be dead wrong this time. But if they're right, then the Republicans are going to make major gains in the Congress, and could conceivably take control of both Houses. And for that prospect, or even that of their taking one House, I grieve.

Cuz ya see, I love this country, and its people and its institutions. And seeing the possibility of even one House of Congress falling into the hands of the lunatic fringe just makes me so very sad. Why are our people so ignorant, so oblivious? Why does it appear likely that we'll vote back in the party that nearly destroyed America under George W. Bush? Why does it look like we will be so ignorant that we'll vote for nation-slayers simply because Pres. Obama has been unable to perform the miracle of reversing in two years the damage GWB did in 8 years, while fighting the obstructionism of the opposing party?

I am grieving. Truly.

But I have an idea that might help the Democrats in the future, if not right away. Here's my idea:

If the Repugs win one or both Houses, nothing of President Obama's agenda is going to get done in the next two years, and it's very possible that Mitch McConnell will get his wish and Prosident Obama will be a one-term president. God knows that's what the entire mechanism of the Republican party is aiming for.

BUT! And this could work, folks - think about it: If one or both Houses are lost, then the very next day, November 3rd, the Democrats must start bombarding their respective Houses with every single scintilla of Obama's agenda. I mean everything any of them ever thought of as the Democratic agenda MUST go into the hopper, and it must remain a steady stream for two full years. And each one of those bills must be trumpeted to the skies!!! Every American with a radio, a TV, a computer, or dental fillings that pick up signal must be made aware that the Dems are working for them, and the repugs are obstructing every gahdam thing! For two full years, this must be the message. Most if not all of the bills will die in committee, and never make it to a floor vote. But the repugs will eventually, I'm thinking about July or so of 2011, have to account for themselves. They'll have to tell the American people just WHY they're doing fuck-all to deal with the nation's problems, and WHY they're shitting all over everything the Dems are trying to do in that regard.

And even the most steadfastly stupid and pseudo-conservative among us will have to admit that not a damn thing has gotten done for the American people while the repugs have been in charge. And maybe some of these lunkheaded morons who voted the repugs back in just might change their vote, maybe enough of them will do so to swing things around.

But I mean, it's got to be a constant Niagara Falls of bill submissions, and every single one of them has to be shouted to the rafters. It'll be a lot of work, but hell, the bastards need something to occupy their time for 100-odd thousand dollars a year.

And if this is done with dedication and aplomb, by November 2012, we'll be so effin' sick of the repug bastards and their obstructionism that the Dems will take back both Houses in an unimaginable tidal wave of votes. Even Karl Rove won't be able to steal this one!

And that's what I think the Dems have to do, IF they get their butts kicked as badly as the pundits currently seem to think they will. Of course, if they don't get whupped that badly - well, they need to do damn near exactly the same thing. Only without quite so many trumpets.

Thoughts?

OK, let me explain something here...

by Rich Miles

Do any of you wonder what this talk is in the TV commercials about a 23% sales tax? I mean, I see this topic getting way out of hand if there isn't some clarity injected into the discussion. So let me give it a try:

First, let me say that I'm not sure if I favor this plan yet or not. There are too many uncertainties to it. I know that if it were laid out the way several countries in Europe do it, then I would be for it, wholeheartedly. But I still have infinite faith in our government to take a perfectly fine idea, and fuck it up miserably. So I'm not going to express an opinion on it until I've seen what, if anything, our lads in Washington are going to do with it. I rather expect it won't be anything like what I'm about to describe, at least in its first incarnation. Assuming there will be a first incarnation.

OK, so here's what is being bandied about, though not with a very high priority at the moment. It's called a value-added tax, or VAT, and it's common in many of the other countries of the civilized world.

But most countries who have a VAT do not apply it to everyday purchases like groceries, toiletries, soft drinks, etc. VAT is intended as a consumption tax. Great Britain has an approximately 17% VAT, in addition to income tax and assorted other taxes - but NOT sales tax. I don't know what other countries charge, though it should be easy enough to ferret them out on the Internet.

So what would be the point of America adopting a VAT, which is the 23% tax that's being talked about? Well, if the income tax remains in effect, there would be little point to it. But if the VAT were to replace the income tax, and were attached to enough commodities, it might end up being a boon to all of us - no income tax, and a refund on a portion of the VAT at the end of the year.

So far, there hasn't been enough (none is not enough) sane discussion of the tax to determine if it's feasible in America. But it's not automatically a rotten idea. There are circumstances under which a VAT could be a good idea.

But you'll never convince a repug of that. It's a tax, and there's nothing else for it but to reject it.

So that's what the tax is about. It will take a lot more talk before it can even be considered in this country.

And if you have a clearer explanation of VAT, please comment here. I'd appreciate it.

Find John Roberts a new job

by Rich Miles

Yellow Dog, over at Blue in the Bluegrass, has posted on a topic that I think should become near and dear to the hearts of all liberals: the impeachment of Supreme Court justices who do not serve the people. Go read the whole thing.

But here's what I think: This - the impeachment of one or more extremely biased Supreme Court justices - is one of the best ideas I've seen in years. In fact, I had this idea about a year or so ago, but figured it would lead to civil war, so never put it out there.

But ya know, all considered, civil war may not be such a bad thing. At least, not considering the alternative, which is the destruction of the American way of life.

Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and arguably one or two others, need to be gotten rid of (this is NOT a physical threat, but an urging toward the use of law to remove them from office). The Supreme Court must always be seen as the last, FAIREST resort of American government, and now it's like the judges on the courts of some banana republic, where the rulings are pretty much decided in advance.

And the Citizens United ruling is unquestionably the WORST ruling the U.S. Supreme Court has EVER handed down. It literally hands the right to vote to wealthy corporations, to the exclusion of the rest of us.

We're seeing the effect of this now, in the 2010 election cycle. NO ONE thinks this is a good idea except the CEO's of large corporations.

And have you ever parsed out WHY corporations agree with this ruling?

It's because Citizens United allows corporations quite literally to BUY POLITICIANS. It's no longer covert - the pols are for sale, and they're just about price-marked and on the shelves waiting for the highest bidder.

And of course, after those pols are bought and placed in office, they continue to have allegiances, required allegiances, to those whut brung 'em.

Again, to the exclusion of the rest of us. So our Supreme Court is no longer ours. It belongs to the corporations, which according to the courts, are just like human beings and have every right to give as much money as they wish to any candidate they wish.

Now how can anyone view that as anything but permission to buy politicians? Give 'em as much money as you want, and then expect them NOT to do your bidding at every turn? Are we really that stupid, that we think that's NOT what's going to happen? And who gave us this ruling, but Roberts' court?

And how do we get rid of corrupt justices? And what doubt can there be that several of our justices are unquestionably corrupt?

Impeach Roberts. To start with. And then we'll see what happens next.

Bush lets self off hook too easily - again!

by Rich Miles

Today, the Huffington Post reports that George W. "I never did anything wrong while in the presidency" Bush finally admits to having done something less than perfectly while he warmed the seat in the Oval Office. Can you believe it?

But he gets this one wrong too - he says that his biggest mistake while president was not privatizing Social Security!

I mean the gall of this guy! First, he really seems to believe that it was all his doing that it failed, and secondly, he seems to think it would have been a GOOD thing if he'd succeeded

Read the whole thing here.

You know, a pattern is beginning to emerge in American history - I'm being hyperbolic, it's already emerged. The pattern is, every time since Reagan inclusive that a Republican president has been in office, the American treasury has taken a major hit, and the Democrats have gotten blamed for it.

I mean, Reagan's tax cuts, and other monetary chicanery, and Bush's additional tax cuts, PLUS the establishment of the Homeland Security department, and the consolidation of all those cabinet departments under its aegis, and other spending and deficit accumulation over 8 years - I mean, people, it's not just cant to say that there was a SURPLUS in the federal budget before Bush hit Washington - there really was a SURPLUS!!! MORE money than we needed to pay the nation's bills! You know...a SURPLUS!

And now, after 8 years of Bush and less than 2 years of Obama, there is a MASSIVE and I mean massive deficit - and it all gets blamed on Obama???

I mean, how stupid can Americans be? Do we really think that just SAYING that Obama is responsible for the deficits of the past 10 years makes it so?

(I mean yeah, Obama and his people have made some decisions that have added to the deficit, but c'mon!!! Let's look at the figures - Obama's additions have been a small percentage of what Bush put there with his people, his Congress, and his executive orders, and so on.)

I'm beginning to despair of Americans' intelligence - do we really have so little ability to remember history, to observe facts, to really figger it out, that we're going to hand over Congress to the very people who put us in this mess, in the hope that they'll pull us out of it this time? Are we really that stupid? That we're going to expect a segment of the population to behave totally against type? That we will expect liars to tell the truth this time?

Will we do this at our own peril? And will we suffer the consequences - among them the loss of Social Security payments as Republicans take the SocSec surplus and apply it to the general fund deficits?

Think it over, people. It's not only the future of our country, and our children. It's our own future too. Believing Republicans is hazardous to our and our country's health.

If the pundits are to be believed, we are. And it just makes me sick in my guts to see it happening.

I mean, I keep praying for what looks like a miracle. And you know how useful that can be.

What's wrong with him?

OK, I'm stumped: What's the problem with David Brooks?

I mean, the guy spent 8 years being the biggest kind of Bush-lovin' asshole, and completely alienated me, among many others.

And now, at least to a certain degree, Brooks has lately been a perfect, or near-perfect, gentleman!

Today's column (10/5/10) is a positive paean to - of all people on the opposite side of the aisle - Rahm Emanuel! Brooks spends pretty much the entire column talking about how misunderstood and mischaracterized poor Rahm is, and how he's a much nicer guy than everyone thinks he is.

Read the whole thing here.

Now, I have no way of knowing if Rahm Emanuel is a nice guy or not - I've only met him once, and that was at an all-Democrat function where he would be inclined to be on his best behavior. In that instance, he was indeed a gentleman, though one could sense the pent-up power of the man. But of course, pent-up power can move in two directions, so even that doesn't really say anything definitive.

Anyway, I'm out of things to say here. I'd love to have your opinions on Brooks' column, and any further perceptions you may have about Emanuel or about Brooks' recent tone. Thanks!

Too many truths, too many lies

by Rich Miles

Dear Republicans:

I don't know why I bother with these open letters to Repugs. As a group, you've all made it perfectly clear that you won't listen to anyone except those who say exactly what you want to hear. But I keep thinking if I continue to try to get some truth down to you, eventually a few of you will wake up to something resembling reality. Only time will tell if I'm right or wrong. So far, I'm fairly certain I'm wrong.

Anyway, today's sermon is on the topic of Social Security. In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that I am a recipient of SocSec benefits. But this only serves to make me more careful to get my facts straight when discussing the matter.

Let me start by pointing out that almost everything Republicans have said on this topic has been either wrong or a deliberate lie. Democrats have made a few errors on the matter, but I don't think I've so far seen any direct lies from a Dem.

Anyway, I'd like to ask you all, of either persuasion, to take note of a very salient fact in the discussion: in the portion relating to how long SocSec can survive, the numbers keep getting bigger. For instance, as recently as about 18 months ago, it was being said that benefits could be paid for 25 years, after which 75% of promised benefits could be paid almost into perpetuity.

Now, the estimate is that all promised bennies can be paid through 2039 (29 years out), and that 80% will be paid for almost-ever.

The numbers are getting bigger, see?

Predictions of SocSec insolvency have been made for decades. There was an article in Esquire magazine back when I was still in high school, prior ro 1971, that said the insolvency would ALREADY be here, by 1996 if I remember correctly.

But it's still solvent, and the actuarial estimates for how much longer it will survive are another 29 years out.

I begin to believe that the entire purpose of the Republican party and all its members is to KILL SocSec. Nothing else, just that. They certainly haven't DONE anything else to dispel that belief.

BUT - there is one bit of misinformation that is making the Democratic rounds that I'd like to put a stop to:

Some people seem to think that the way to absolutely ensure solvency is to increase the maximum income level up to which payroll assessments for the system are made, or eliminate any maximum and just keep taking out deductions up to infinity. It's currently at $106,800, which means that if you make more than that, your employer will stop deducting SocSec from your gross pay.

But the suggestion has been made, repeatedly, that deductions should continue to be made no matter how much one makes. That would increase contributions to the fund by a lot, and add to solvency. Well, that's not entirely true, but here's why such a plan would not be fair: because of the maximum amount on which benefits are calculated. That amount is, you guessed it, $106,800. If you make more than that, your benefit when you retire will not increase as a result. So, it's not really fair to ask high income makers to pay more for something that will not benefit them more.

Or so the theory goes. It's up to you whether you agree that it's unfair to continue to take deductions for something that doesn't produce a benefit. I don't really know how I feel about it. I'm tending toward the old leftie position of "Shut the fuck up and pay the money", but I'm not sure yet.

Got an opinion on this?

Held Hostage

by Rich Miles

You know, there are lots of people who write blogs and columns who are trying very hard to make noise and get noticed. So when a guy with a national forum just plugs along, telling major truths without shouting about it, it's kinda refreshing.

So it is with Paul Krugman. I know I've spent a lot of time and column inches praising him lately, but he really does seem to be one of the few national voices telling us the unpleasant truths. He's a leftie, that much seems undeniable, and that's probably one of the reasons I like him so much. But he's also revealing some of the deep-level machinations going on in Washington, and we need such revelations.

Like, for instance, that the Republicans in Congress are seeking to blackmail the entire country if they don't get what they want: consider this excerpt from Krugman's column of this date (9/23/10):

“Nice middle class you got here,” said Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader. “It would be a shame if something happened to it.”

O.K., he didn’t actually say that. But he might as well have, because that’s what the current confrontation over taxes amounts to. Mr. McConnell, who was self-righteously denouncing the budget deficit just the other day, now wants to blow that deficit up with big tax cuts for the rich. But he doesn’t have the votes. So he’s trying to get what he wants by pointing a gun at the heads of middle-class families, threatening to force a jump in their taxes unless he gets paid off with hugely expensive tax breaks for the wealthy.

You got that? He's willing to raise taxes on the middle class and poor in America, and if he doesn't get the permanent tax cuts he wants for the TOP 2% of wage-earners, he will hold the remaining 98% of us HOSTAGE by raising our taxes.

Now seriously - what kind of total scumbag would do something like that? Who, other than a repug moron, like oh I don't know, Mitch McConnell, thinks that the richest 2% of our population deserves more consideration that that poorest 98%?

And to go back to the top of the page, my point about Paul Krugman is that he's just quietly revealing this sort of information, very quietly, without fanfare or acrimony. Or name-calling or hatred or childish behavior. He just tells it like it is. Which is pretty damn rare these days.

But back to the point: Mitch McConnell and his party-mates are willing to fuck you in order to score partisan points. They'll harm you, raise your taxes, AND leave the taxes of the wealthy UNraised.

I mean, did all these jerks fail basic arithmetic? Do they not understand that wealthy people have more money than the rest of us? I mean, as surprising as it may seem, I don't, and most liberals don't, want rich people to be taxed punitively. We don't want them taxed so much that they cease to be wealthy.

We just want them to pay their fair share. Like about, oh I don't know, Clinton-era tax levels. No one went bankrupt at those tax rates, and we ended up with a budget surplus (yes, that's right, a SURPLUS) for about a minute and a half, till the repugs lied their way into office in 2000.

Doesn't anyone remember George Bush claiming in the campaign debates, more than once, that his tax cuts would benefit all Americans, and Al Gore replying that the actuarial analysis showed that Bush's proposal for tax cuts overwhelmingly benefitted the top 1-2% of taxpayers, and Bush lying his ass off, even ridiculing Gore by saying that it wasn't true.

But it was. True, I mean. And a few months after the election, when the big-time pundits discovered it was true, they acted soooooooo surpriiiiised! One of the network guys, I wish I could remember which one, even said that there was "no way we could have predicted such an outcome." I remember this much - when I saw the guy say that, I wanted to wring his effin' geeky little neck.

And it remains true. And the entire repug side of the entire U.S. Congress, both houses, are willing to lie through their teeth right to our faces.

And these same repugs want us to give them CONTROL of both houses in November, so they can do stuff to aid the wealthy and big business even more. And by extension, whether intended or not, to screw the rest of us. And I'm pretty sure it's intended.

Man, talk about yer class warfare!

Democrats, stand up and knee these guys in the nuts! Please!

And repug voters, come ON!!! Look at what's going on around you! They're screwing you too, you know. It doesn't take much research to see it.

It's not partisan politics. It's the future of our country. Believe it!