By Rich Miles
New anti-Mitt ad on the airwaves. Take a look:
Mitt Romoney's Hand is in Your Pocket
I mean, the toad has so little respect for us, the taxpayers, that he's barely bothering to hide his oligarchical tendencies any longer. And if you read his speeches, don't have to parse them much, just READ them, or listen if you can get your hands on the video or audio, you'll see that he is not only an oligarch, but quite literally an out-of-touch, let-them-eat-cake fool, who doesn't even realize how condescending and offensive he's being toward us.
And take his recent trip to Britain etc. Do we really want
ANOTHER president who can be counted on to embarrass us every time he leaves home (not to mention every time he opens his mouth at home)?
PLEASE, voters! If you're leaning towards Romoney, PLEASE take serious note of who he is, and what he says, and how he says it. It scares the pee out of me that he is as close in the polls as he is - one Quinnipiac poll has him AHEAD of Obama. I'm hoping that's an outlier.
Remember my fave quote: "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"? Well, look back in the books or the videotapes to the year 2000, when Al Gore TOLD us in no uncertain terms that GWB's tax plan was going to benefit the top 1 or 2% of the earning curve? That was when Shrub laid the "fuzzy math" crapola on us. But Gore was right - and even at that, Bush was re-elected in '04. Or elected for the first time, say some. Like me.
So how many times does it take us to learn? Are we going to elect ANOTHER tax-cuts-for-the-rich oligarch? Or, as some are observing now, is Romoney going to elect himself with voter-eligibility chicanery?
Wake up, America!! Or as they used to say in the old films noirs, get wise to yourself! The guy is no good for America!
I'm the first to admit that Obama has not performed as well as we hoped he would when we voted for him in '08. He's done a decent job in many ways, but we were expecting miracles that did not materialize. There are numerous reasons for this, not least among them the obstructionist House repugs, but all in all he's let us down. But letting us down is not the same as BEATING us down, which is where Romoney is headed.
Use your head, not your heart this November. And if you love America, you cannot vote for Romoney. You simply CANNOT!!!
I forbid it!
Not that what I forbid means squat to you. But take a look at the commercial. It should at least make you laugh. And from my POV, a good laugh is the best we can hope for right now. Till November, anyway, when I will hope for more.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Sunday, August 05, 2012
As George Raft says, "big joke"
by Rich Miles
Know what this is?
It's a tax calculator.
Now don't get excited all over yourself. It's a tax calculator that will tell you something very important.
It will tell you what your tax will be this year under the tax proposals of President Obama, and what it will be under the proposals of Mitt 'the Mutt' Romoney.
And the results are pretty astounding. In my family's case, we saved over $3000 with Obama's plan. You know, the one the Repugs have blocked repeatedly, in an effort to give the same tax breaks to the 1-2% of obscenely wealthy people in this country. Unconscionable greed and avarice. Simply unconscionable.
Now, the Republicans call the info and assumptions on which this calculator was created "a joke". They would, after all - anything that makes them look bad has to be ridiculed and discounted.
But as far as I have been able to find, there is no explanation of WHY it's a joke - what's funny about it, or what's not true about it.
So spread it all over the Web. If it turns out to be BS, I'm sure it will become known quickly. However, as of right now, it's true. And unconscionable.
See what you can find out about it if you like. I have researched it, and can find no flaws in its premises.
And its conclusions are truly sickmaking.
I never met a Repug with a sense of humor about anything except the suffering of others. THAT they find VERY funny. But you wanna know what's a joke? Any Republican ever speaking the words "tax break for the middle class". Now THAT is an effin' joke.
Know what this is?
It's a tax calculator.
Now don't get excited all over yourself. It's a tax calculator that will tell you something very important.
It will tell you what your tax will be this year under the tax proposals of President Obama, and what it will be under the proposals of Mitt 'the Mutt' Romoney.
And the results are pretty astounding. In my family's case, we saved over $3000 with Obama's plan. You know, the one the Repugs have blocked repeatedly, in an effort to give the same tax breaks to the 1-2% of obscenely wealthy people in this country. Unconscionable greed and avarice. Simply unconscionable.
Now, the Republicans call the info and assumptions on which this calculator was created "a joke". They would, after all - anything that makes them look bad has to be ridiculed and discounted.
But as far as I have been able to find, there is no explanation of WHY it's a joke - what's funny about it, or what's not true about it.
So spread it all over the Web. If it turns out to be BS, I'm sure it will become known quickly. However, as of right now, it's true. And unconscionable.
See what you can find out about it if you like. I have researched it, and can find no flaws in its premises.
And its conclusions are truly sickmaking.
I never met a Repug with a sense of humor about anything except the suffering of others. THAT they find VERY funny. But you wanna know what's a joke? Any Republican ever speaking the words "tax break for the middle class". Now THAT is an effin' joke.
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Whatever happened to Jack Jodell and Cletis Stump?
By Rich Miles
Here's a lesson for young or rookie bloggers: Blog OFTEN! Make sure there is new content for your readers, especially when it becomes clear that you have a few regular ones.
Like Jack and Cletis. Some few years back, these two gentlemen, who I have never met in person, commented on almost every post I made. They showed themselves to be thoughtful, intelligent gentlemen, who also liked my writing. (That last is the best reason of all to please your readers.)
But now, it's been 7 months for Cletis, and almost 16 months for Jack, since they last commented on me. And again despite the fact that I've never met them, it feels like the loss of a couple of pretty good ol' pals.
So where are ya, boys? Come back! I promise to try to write more often!
And to you newbie bloggers - let this be a lesson to you!
They come, they go. But sometimes when they go, they don't come back easily.
Here's a lesson for young or rookie bloggers: Blog OFTEN! Make sure there is new content for your readers, especially when it becomes clear that you have a few regular ones.
Like Jack and Cletis. Some few years back, these two gentlemen, who I have never met in person, commented on almost every post I made. They showed themselves to be thoughtful, intelligent gentlemen, who also liked my writing. (That last is the best reason of all to please your readers.)
But now, it's been 7 months for Cletis, and almost 16 months for Jack, since they last commented on me. And again despite the fact that I've never met them, it feels like the loss of a couple of pretty good ol' pals.
So where are ya, boys? Come back! I promise to try to write more often!
And to you newbie bloggers - let this be a lesson to you!
They come, they go. But sometimes when they go, they don't come back easily.
This is KILLING me!!!
by Rich Miles
OK, look, I have made it unmistakably clear over the past umpty-ump years exactly where I stand politically - I am a bleeding-heart liberal in most regards. Only area in which I could be accused of being reactionary or right-wing is that I want all right-wingers and repugnicans killed. But that's only a fond wish, as it will certainly never happen. Sadly for this world.
But I continue to be confused, confounded and repelled by the right wing's CONSTANT insistence that rich people get tax breaks, and poor people not get those breaks.
(Before I go on, I have to throw in this fact that arose yesterday: the House of Representatives have voted down ObamaCare (you know what I really mean) 33 times!!! They can't take a vote AT ALL on several of Obama's judicial nominees, but they can vote down, and be defeated by the Senate, 33 times!!! on this one issue.)
OK, back to the subject at hand: I continue to be amazed, astounded, and appalled that the repugs actually stand up on their hind legs and say, in essence, "Let's keep these tax breaks for the wealthiest among us - people making over $1,000,000 a year! Let's repeal the breaks for those making less than $250,000 a year. (and since when was THAT figure a cutoff point between rich and poor?)
I mean, HOW DO THEY DO IT? How do they call themselves representatives of the people, and then proceed to do things that represent and benefit only approx. 1% of those people? How do they live with their consciences when they vote FOR tax cuts for people who already have large (often huge!!) amounts of money, and AGAINST tax cuts for those who are struggling with finances, and bills to pay, and TAXES - just because few of those people run their own businesses?
Has anyone ever done research to discover how many of the people who make over $1,000,000 a year actually DO own businesses? And how many are just greedheads who stick all their money in investments of various sorts, but who have never DREAMED of putting their money at such a risk as a business, which could fail or something!
OK, OK, I recognize the connection between investing and a healthy economy. I see that rich people who invest in say, DuPont are keeping that company healthy, and keeping their employees employed, and their retirees funds funded.
But what seems never to have entered into the thinking (you'll pardon the expression) on this matter is this:
If 1% of Americans can invest $1,000,000 (for example), then how would it be if 99% of Americans could invest say, $10,000 in business? Or if successful, $20K? Or $100,000? Maybe never a mil, but hell, there are 99 TIMES as many of these small investors as there are the big'uns.
So why are these people abandoned? And more to the point, why do congressdogs say these outrageously classist and selfish things, and expect conservative voters to vote for them? And why do those conservative voters DO IT??
It's frightening, that people who were raised in that ethos, of taking care of the poor and giving to those in need, and all that, are now voting for people who SAY that's what they espouse, but who BEHAVE exactly the opposite - who root for the rich, since it's the rich who are paying for their re-election campaigns.
Seems simple, doesn't it? So why are repugs winning even elections for dogcatcher, much less higher offices? Why, I ask you?
No answer. But stupidity has NOT been ruled out.
C'mon, mongrels!! Make sure you know what the candidate stands for BEFORE you vote for him or her. You might be surprised to learn that that Republican label does not mean they think just like you. They might just be in opposition to what you think is right. You might even have to vote for (shudder) the Democrat!
And then where would you be? Apart from in a box.
Don't be stupid, people. Think - look - make sure the man is more than the party label. And that applies to Democrats, too!!
OK, look, I have made it unmistakably clear over the past umpty-ump years exactly where I stand politically - I am a bleeding-heart liberal in most regards. Only area in which I could be accused of being reactionary or right-wing is that I want all right-wingers and repugnicans killed. But that's only a fond wish, as it will certainly never happen. Sadly for this world.
But I continue to be confused, confounded and repelled by the right wing's CONSTANT insistence that rich people get tax breaks, and poor people not get those breaks.
(Before I go on, I have to throw in this fact that arose yesterday: the House of Representatives have voted down ObamaCare (you know what I really mean) 33 times!!! They can't take a vote AT ALL on several of Obama's judicial nominees, but they can vote down, and be defeated by the Senate, 33 times!!! on this one issue.)
OK, back to the subject at hand: I continue to be amazed, astounded, and appalled that the repugs actually stand up on their hind legs and say, in essence, "Let's keep these tax breaks for the wealthiest among us - people making over $1,000,000 a year! Let's repeal the breaks for those making less than $250,000 a year. (and since when was THAT figure a cutoff point between rich and poor?)
I mean, HOW DO THEY DO IT? How do they call themselves representatives of the people, and then proceed to do things that represent and benefit only approx. 1% of those people? How do they live with their consciences when they vote FOR tax cuts for people who already have large (often huge!!) amounts of money, and AGAINST tax cuts for those who are struggling with finances, and bills to pay, and TAXES - just because few of those people run their own businesses?
Has anyone ever done research to discover how many of the people who make over $1,000,000 a year actually DO own businesses? And how many are just greedheads who stick all their money in investments of various sorts, but who have never DREAMED of putting their money at such a risk as a business, which could fail or something!
OK, OK, I recognize the connection between investing and a healthy economy. I see that rich people who invest in say, DuPont are keeping that company healthy, and keeping their employees employed, and their retirees funds funded.
But what seems never to have entered into the thinking (you'll pardon the expression) on this matter is this:
If 1% of Americans can invest $1,000,000 (for example), then how would it be if 99% of Americans could invest say, $10,000 in business? Or if successful, $20K? Or $100,000? Maybe never a mil, but hell, there are 99 TIMES as many of these small investors as there are the big'uns.
So why are these people abandoned? And more to the point, why do congressdogs say these outrageously classist and selfish things, and expect conservative voters to vote for them? And why do those conservative voters DO IT??
It's frightening, that people who were raised in that ethos, of taking care of the poor and giving to those in need, and all that, are now voting for people who SAY that's what they espouse, but who BEHAVE exactly the opposite - who root for the rich, since it's the rich who are paying for their re-election campaigns.
Seems simple, doesn't it? So why are repugs winning even elections for dogcatcher, much less higher offices? Why, I ask you?
No answer. But stupidity has NOT been ruled out.
C'mon, mongrels!! Make sure you know what the candidate stands for BEFORE you vote for him or her. You might be surprised to learn that that Republican label does not mean they think just like you. They might just be in opposition to what you think is right. You might even have to vote for (shudder) the Democrat!
And then where would you be? Apart from in a box.
Don't be stupid, people. Think - look - make sure the man is more than the party label. And that applies to Democrats, too!!
Monday, July 23, 2012
May God DAMN these people!!
by Rich Miles
OK, I've had it with these people - the ones who claim to know what god thinks, and what he will do, and how damned everyone else but them and their kind are.
I am not a religious person. I'm not prepared to call myself an atheist, so I hedge my bets, I guess, and call myself an agnostic. Which means I don't effin' know, and probably neither do you.
I saw this headline, and it made my blood boil. Here it is - grab a glass of ice water before you read. How does this guy differ from Muslim fanatics, or Hindu ones, or so on. Rate the sucker, and don't go easy:
Newcombe, you are a FOOL!! I hope your dogma is correct at least to the extent that you get thrown into the fiery furnace.
But I really doubt it.
OK, I've had it with these people - the ones who claim to know what god thinks, and what he will do, and how damned everyone else but them and their kind are.
I am not a religious person. I'm not prepared to call myself an atheist, so I hedge my bets, I guess, and call myself an agnostic. Which means I don't effin' know, and probably neither do you.
I saw this headline, and it made my blood boil. Here it is - grab a glass of ice water before you read. How does this guy differ from Muslim fanatics, or Hindu ones, or so on. Rate the sucker, and don't go easy:
Jerry Newcombe, Evangelical Leader, Says Only Christian Victims Of Colorado Shooting Going To Heaven
=============================================
An evangelical spokesperson for a religious group known as Truth In Action has claimed that the tragedy in Colorado happened because America has lost its fear of hell.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/jerry-newcombe-hell_n
In an article published on OneNewsNow, evangelical Jerry Newcombe wrote:
I mean, is this guy a self-absorbed moron, or what? How can he, even within the rules and regs of his own denomination, know and proclaim what God did, does, or will do?
I say that God told ME that Newcombe is gonna get kidnapped and gang-raped by at least 70 (isn't that a biblical reference?) toughass bastards, each one more hung than the last.
Now prove me wrong. WITHOUT using the word "faith" (the new F-word).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/jerry-newcombe-hell_n
In an article published on OneNewsNow, evangelical Jerry Newcombe wrote:
I can't help but feel that to some extent, we're reaping what we've been sowing as a society. We said to God, "Get out of the public arena." Lawsuit after lawsuit, often by misguided "civil libertarians," have chased away any fear of God in the land -- at least in the hearts of millions.Newcombe is not alone in reacting this way to the shooting in Aurora that claimed 12 lives and left dozens of people injured. On the day of the shooting Rep. Gohmert of Texas also insisted that the shootings are the result of "ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian Beliefs":
"People say ... where was God in all of this? We've threatened high school graduation participations, if they use God's name, they're going to be jailed ... I mean that kind of stuff. Where was God? What have we done with God? We don't want him around. I kind of like his protective hand being present."Perhaps more disturbing were Newcombe’s comments on a segment on the American Family Association dedicated to understanding the shooting tragedy in Colorado. In taking about the deaths, Newcombe separated the afterlife fate of those who died as Christians and those who did not:
If a Christian dies early, if a Christian dies young, it seems tragic, but really it is not tragic because they are going to a wonderful place ... on the other hand, if a person doesn’t know Jesus Christ ... if they knowingly rejected Jesus Christ, then, basically, they are going to a terrible place.Newcombe then turned the tragedy into an opportunity for people to convert to Christianity and avoid the fate of hell:
For those who are not ‘in Christ’ and see this incredible tragedy, this would be a good time for soul reflection and consider why have you not accepted Jesus Christ ... I would urge anyone who is not in Christ to repent of your sins.============================================
I mean, is this guy a self-absorbed moron, or what? How can he, even within the rules and regs of his own denomination, know and proclaim what God did, does, or will do?
I say that God told ME that Newcombe is gonna get kidnapped and gang-raped by at least 70 (isn't that a biblical reference?) toughass bastards, each one more hung than the last.
Now prove me wrong. WITHOUT using the word "faith" (the new F-word).
Newcombe, you are a FOOL!! I hope your dogma is correct at least to the extent that you get thrown into the fiery furnace.
But I really doubt it.
Friday, July 13, 2012
If you can be bought...at least be expensive
by Rich Miles
Hi, gang - if you read the post right before this one, then this one will probably make more sense.
So anyway, fellow Americans, I'd like to ask a favor of you: I'd like for all of you to strongly resist the pull of huge amounts of money, to which you will be subjected in coming months, as the electoral pull and effects of billions of dollars that would have been illegal 5 years ago are exerted on you and all of us, in a purported attempt to exercise the free-speech rights of the billionaires giving the massive amounts of money, but in actuality to buy the election.
That was a pretty long sentence, but I said what I meant: money buys messages, that cause people to change their minds, or to reinforce their beliefs, and when this happens in relation to elections, the guy with the most money can say whatever he wants, and sway opinions in any direction he cares to. Even if he LIES his ass off.
So there it is in a nutshell: Republicans lie their asses off on the best of days. And if you give them lots of money, as the Koch Bros. et al are doing now, they can say whatever they care to, and we who know they are lying can't do anything about it, because it is a Labor of Hercules. It's just too big.
So here's what I'm asking of my fellow Americans: STOP being so naive, that a few dollars will buy your vote. THINK about what you're hearing, and don't let it sway you. Believe what you believe, and don't let the paid announcements change that.
In other words, stop being a damn stupid SHEEP, that can be led anywhere if the price is right. THINK about what you hear. Does it make sense? Is it logical? For instance, the other day a friend of mine, who I didn't even know was a Repug, said that "no one could convince her that Obama has a brain in his head." Now, that is one of those statements that, if you think about it just a little, you'll recognize as simply highly unlikely to be true. Pres. Obama was a college professor, in the subject of constitutional law. One does not get such a job if one is not bright - exceptionally bright. The person who made this observation heard someone say that - she didn't really believe Pres. Obama is stupid, or if she did, she got it from someone else. Now, I am not saying that this person is herself stupid - though I am inclined to believe she is easily led to beliefs that have specious antecedents. I consider this person a friend, but I had to insist that we no longer discuss anything of a political nature, because I didn't want to come to shouting with her.
But at any rate, this kind of thinking - thought that is influenced by messages, and messages that are presented for NO other reason than to sway the electorate - is what gave us 8 years of George W. Bush, unquestionably the stupidest man to occupy the office in the past 2 centuries. And Mitt Romney (or Romoney, as I saw him called in a letter to the editor the other day) may give GWB a run for his money in the stupid department.
Romoney is a liar - viz. his statements about his involvement with various corporations like Bain and so on. - and is far too rich to be honest (sorry, I hate to generalize like that, but rich people are about 98% likely to be lying MF's), and in general is just not a good choice for president.
These facts, and more, remain true no matter how much money is spent on Romoney's campaign.
So your job as an American is not to be swayed by money - by the slickness and frequency of Romoney's ads, etc.
Can you do that? Can you make your judgment based on how competent either candidate is, and not on how much crap they blow at you?
If you do that, and pick Romoney anyway, I will respect it. I'll think you're stupid, but I'll respect your right to BE stupid.
But Obama is the man for president. He will do in a second term what Repugs have blocked him from doing in the first. And he's not stupid rich. Listen to his message, then to Romoney's, and see which one makes the most sense.
And don't be a cheap whore. OK?
Hi, gang - if you read the post right before this one, then this one will probably make more sense.
So anyway, fellow Americans, I'd like to ask a favor of you: I'd like for all of you to strongly resist the pull of huge amounts of money, to which you will be subjected in coming months, as the electoral pull and effects of billions of dollars that would have been illegal 5 years ago are exerted on you and all of us, in a purported attempt to exercise the free-speech rights of the billionaires giving the massive amounts of money, but in actuality to buy the election.
That was a pretty long sentence, but I said what I meant: money buys messages, that cause people to change their minds, or to reinforce their beliefs, and when this happens in relation to elections, the guy with the most money can say whatever he wants, and sway opinions in any direction he cares to. Even if he LIES his ass off.
So there it is in a nutshell: Republicans lie their asses off on the best of days. And if you give them lots of money, as the Koch Bros. et al are doing now, they can say whatever they care to, and we who know they are lying can't do anything about it, because it is a Labor of Hercules. It's just too big.
So here's what I'm asking of my fellow Americans: STOP being so naive, that a few dollars will buy your vote. THINK about what you're hearing, and don't let it sway you. Believe what you believe, and don't let the paid announcements change that.
In other words, stop being a damn stupid SHEEP, that can be led anywhere if the price is right. THINK about what you hear. Does it make sense? Is it logical? For instance, the other day a friend of mine, who I didn't even know was a Repug, said that "no one could convince her that Obama has a brain in his head." Now, that is one of those statements that, if you think about it just a little, you'll recognize as simply highly unlikely to be true. Pres. Obama was a college professor, in the subject of constitutional law. One does not get such a job if one is not bright - exceptionally bright. The person who made this observation heard someone say that - she didn't really believe Pres. Obama is stupid, or if she did, she got it from someone else. Now, I am not saying that this person is herself stupid - though I am inclined to believe she is easily led to beliefs that have specious antecedents. I consider this person a friend, but I had to insist that we no longer discuss anything of a political nature, because I didn't want to come to shouting with her.
But at any rate, this kind of thinking - thought that is influenced by messages, and messages that are presented for NO other reason than to sway the electorate - is what gave us 8 years of George W. Bush, unquestionably the stupidest man to occupy the office in the past 2 centuries. And Mitt Romney (or Romoney, as I saw him called in a letter to the editor the other day) may give GWB a run for his money in the stupid department.
Romoney is a liar - viz. his statements about his involvement with various corporations like Bain and so on. - and is far too rich to be honest (sorry, I hate to generalize like that, but rich people are about 98% likely to be lying MF's), and in general is just not a good choice for president.
These facts, and more, remain true no matter how much money is spent on Romoney's campaign.
So your job as an American is not to be swayed by money - by the slickness and frequency of Romoney's ads, etc.
Can you do that? Can you make your judgment based on how competent either candidate is, and not on how much crap they blow at you?
If you do that, and pick Romoney anyway, I will respect it. I'll think you're stupid, but I'll respect your right to BE stupid.
But Obama is the man for president. He will do in a second term what Repugs have blocked him from doing in the first. And he's not stupid rich. Listen to his message, then to Romoney's, and see which one makes the most sense.
And don't be a cheap whore. OK?
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Money IS the problem, never doubt it!!
by Rich Miles
OK, going to dinner with friends in a few minutes, so just wanted to jot down a few thoughts that I'll elaborate on later:
1) Why will the proposed constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United fail miserably? Because the very people required to pass it and make it the law of the land are the same people who benefit the most by its failure to pass: the federal and state legislators. If CU passes, they will lose billions (trillions?) of dollars in campaign funds that are now available to them.
2) Why do we gauge the success or failure of a political campaign, not by the wisdom of its precepts, nor the good ideas it comes up with, but by how much money it has? It's not a matter of whether the country (state, city, etc. ) will benefit from the election of Pol A or Pol B - it's how much money that pol can dredge up to put his message out to the public, whether that message be beneficial or pernicious.
More to come. But think these over for a minute. And comment if you care to.
And here's some more:
3) Mitt Romney is hereby addressed now and forevermore as Gordon Gecko. If you don't get the reference, websearch it. And what the hell is that man's real name? NO ONE is christened "Mitt". That's a baseball glove, not a person.
Anyway, Gecko Romney has the compassion of a punk rocker for Karen Carpenter - of a Mormon for an infidel. In short, he doesn't give a half a shit for anyone who is not his relative or fellow religionist. Read his speeches carefully - he says it right up front, he just doesn't care for ANYone who is worse off than he is. He actively blames anyone who is not worth several hundred millions, like him, for making themselves poor.
Do not elect this man. He is frighteningly cruel. He is a genuine sociopath. He sucks.
No matter what Obama has done, no matter how he behaves as president, he cannot be as bad or worse than Gecko. No matter your party affiliation, LOOK closely at Gecko's words, and his actions in his one short term as governor of Massachusetts. He did something sorta good with health insurance there, but then fucked it up so that the poor suffered. And with his lack of compassion, the poor suffering is like no one suffering.
DO NOT elect this man! He is DANGEROUS!!! He could perhaps make even George W. Bush look compassionate! And America may not be able to stand another of that ilk.
4) Obama has in mind to do what every second-term president does - he's gonna cut loose and do whatever he likes! Bush did it. Clinton did it. Reagan did it. Once there is no longer the fear of non-re- election, they can do whatever the fuck they want, and we can kiss their asses if we don't like it. Didn't you see it in Bush? He was an asshole the first term. But the second term, it was Katie-bar-the-door. He didn't care what the hell we wanted from him, he was gonna do what he wanted. And in some ways, America is suffering the consequences to this day.(see: the national debt, and the Iraq war. Among lots more.) All we have to do is re-elect Obama. And we'll see why he has so poorly fulfilled the promise of the '08 campaign. He's been trying to keep himself electable, as do all preznits who want a second term.
Enough for now. Comment, write me, etc. etc.
RM
OK, going to dinner with friends in a few minutes, so just wanted to jot down a few thoughts that I'll elaborate on later:
1) Why will the proposed constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United fail miserably? Because the very people required to pass it and make it the law of the land are the same people who benefit the most by its failure to pass: the federal and state legislators. If CU passes, they will lose billions (trillions?) of dollars in campaign funds that are now available to them.
2) Why do we gauge the success or failure of a political campaign, not by the wisdom of its precepts, nor the good ideas it comes up with, but by how much money it has? It's not a matter of whether the country (state, city, etc. ) will benefit from the election of Pol A or Pol B - it's how much money that pol can dredge up to put his message out to the public, whether that message be beneficial or pernicious.
More to come. But think these over for a minute. And comment if you care to.
And here's some more:
3) Mitt Romney is hereby addressed now and forevermore as Gordon Gecko. If you don't get the reference, websearch it. And what the hell is that man's real name? NO ONE is christened "Mitt". That's a baseball glove, not a person.
Anyway, Gecko Romney has the compassion of a punk rocker for Karen Carpenter - of a Mormon for an infidel. In short, he doesn't give a half a shit for anyone who is not his relative or fellow religionist. Read his speeches carefully - he says it right up front, he just doesn't care for ANYone who is worse off than he is. He actively blames anyone who is not worth several hundred millions, like him, for making themselves poor.
Do not elect this man. He is frighteningly cruel. He is a genuine sociopath. He sucks.
No matter what Obama has done, no matter how he behaves as president, he cannot be as bad or worse than Gecko. No matter your party affiliation, LOOK closely at Gecko's words, and his actions in his one short term as governor of Massachusetts. He did something sorta good with health insurance there, but then fucked it up so that the poor suffered. And with his lack of compassion, the poor suffering is like no one suffering.
DO NOT elect this man! He is DANGEROUS!!! He could perhaps make even George W. Bush look compassionate! And America may not be able to stand another of that ilk.
4) Obama has in mind to do what every second-term president does - he's gonna cut loose and do whatever he likes! Bush did it. Clinton did it. Reagan did it. Once there is no longer the fear of non-re- election, they can do whatever the fuck they want, and we can kiss their asses if we don't like it. Didn't you see it in Bush? He was an asshole the first term. But the second term, it was Katie-bar-the-door. He didn't care what the hell we wanted from him, he was gonna do what he wanted. And in some ways, America is suffering the consequences to this day.(see: the national debt, and the Iraq war. Among lots more.) All we have to do is re-elect Obama. And we'll see why he has so poorly fulfilled the promise of the '08 campaign. He's been trying to keep himself electable, as do all preznits who want a second term.
Enough for now. Comment, write me, etc. etc.
RM
Friday, June 15, 2012
Thrilled to see this
by Rich Miles
Update: I guess my Latin ISN'T that good - the expression should be vox legis. See 3rd graf below.
Apparently a few Americans are coming to their senses, 12 years after our national insanity led us to elect a man (Bush Minor) who was so obviously lying to us about pretty much everything, and 8 years after we REALLY showed our madness by RE-electing the asshole. Cut and paste the following link, read the article, and weep - weep because, if you're like me, you knew this years ago:
It's Not Too Late to Blame Bush
In response to my recent piece, "Why Can't We Do That?", I received an email, not a web comment, to say that we can't do it because none of the crimes and specifications I mentioned broke any laws. I'm not sure I agree with that - he sent men to their deaths, directly and unequivocally. Doesn't that at least qualify as manslaughter, if not murder?
Send some comments, you all! I'd like to know if anyone else thinks this way. And yes, I'm aware that vox populi does not equal vox dei. I would be curious to see if it is at least similar to vocis lex*. (And I hope my Latin is at least this good. What I mean is the voice of the law.)
But read the link above. If your politics are similar to mine, it will bring joy to your heart.
Update: I guess my Latin ISN'T that good - the expression should be vox legis. See 3rd graf below.
Apparently a few Americans are coming to their senses, 12 years after our national insanity led us to elect a man (Bush Minor) who was so obviously lying to us about pretty much everything, and 8 years after we REALLY showed our madness by RE-electing the asshole. Cut and paste the following link, read the article, and weep - weep because, if you're like me, you knew this years ago:
It's Not Too Late to Blame Bush
In response to my recent piece, "Why Can't We Do That?", I received an email, not a web comment, to say that we can't do it because none of the crimes and specifications I mentioned broke any laws. I'm not sure I agree with that - he sent men to their deaths, directly and unequivocally. Doesn't that at least qualify as manslaughter, if not murder?
Send some comments, you all! I'd like to know if anyone else thinks this way. And yes, I'm aware that vox populi does not equal vox dei. I would be curious to see if it is at least similar to vocis lex*. (And I hope my Latin is at least this good. What I mean is the voice of the law.)
But read the link above. If your politics are similar to mine, it will bring joy to your heart.
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Why can't we do that?
By Rich Miles
On June 1, 2012, an Egyptian court sentenced former president Hosni Mubarak to life in prison for failing to stop the killing of protestors in a demonstration last year.
Got that? Not for killing anyone - but for failing to stop the killings.
Now I ask you: why can't we do that here in America?
I mean, God knows we had a much worse criminal in the White House for 8 years. Just the short list of his crimes include election fraud and stealing at least one, possibly two national elections; nearly bankrupting the national budget to the tune of trillions of dollars, and then blaming it on his successor; and last but by no means least, the killing of over 4000 American soldiers and countless Iraqi soldiers and civilians, and maiming even more thousands on both sides, in an unnecessary and pointless war designed to a) avenge one man, his father, who was not even injured by any Iraqi, and b) get himself re-elected, on the belief that the American people would not vote out even the most incompetent leadership in wartime. Remember "Don't change horses in the middle of a stream", Lincoln's campaign slogan? I am virtually certain that the overweeningly stupid American electorate has never done that, voted out a president in wartime since then, and probably not before. Nixon took over for LBJ in Vietnam, but that was voluntary. Johnson quit.
So why can't WE try and convict the criminal who was in the White House for 8 years, and who has put this country in such a bloody-awful mess in so many ways? Why can't we avenge our national shame in electing him twice, and put the sumbitch in prison for the rest of his life? He's only 65 years old, and if we put him in prison for life, he'll likely stay there to serve as a national example for many more years than Mubarak, who is 84 and reportedly in poor health.
Look, I've said this so many times before, but it will serve my thesis to say it again: we must nail some of these people, most egregiously Bush, who by now is firmly established as the worst president in U.S. history - we must ensure that there are CONSEQUENCES to heinous acts like Bush's, or politicians will keep doing this kind of crap in the future, assured in the knowledge that they can GET AWAY WITH IT, to their own and their friends' enrichment (see tax breaks for the wealthy, over and over again, among other things).
I mean it, people - we all complain about what a bunch of crooks we have in Washington, and our respective statehouses and city halls, and I think it would not be overstating to say that it's gone on for hundreds of years and will continue for hundreds more, if we don't take steps to curtail it!
And really, the only steps that will have any HOPE of curtailing such behavior is to PUT THE BASTARDS IN JAIL!!! Or even, in extreme cases, execute a bunch of 'em. What more fitting judgment for GWB, who used US military personnel like his own personal game pieces in a war NO ONE wanted, except him and his coterie of war criminals? Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and many, many more?
I mean, am I wrong? Do you think the sumbitches will reform themselves on their own? There are politicians like Alan Grayson, Russ Feingold (sadly voted out of office), Dennis Kucinich, John Yarmuth, and a few more, who are not only honest, but will continue to be honest even to their own political detriment. Even after nearly 4 years, I can't say I'm sure where our current president falls on this continuum. I think he's more honest than not - but I don't know if I can call him honest.
But at any rate, the overwhelming majority of elected officers in this country are thieving, lying, say-anything-to-get-elected bastards! They craft and pass legislation that exempts themselves from the broader laws of the land, and they take bribes and let themselves be bought every day of the year. And yet there is no punishment, no consequences, nothing to HURT the bastards into stopping this crap. They are using taxpayer money to screw and hurt the taxpayers - you and me!
So will we keep believing that they are all assholes except OUR guy, and keep electing our guy, no matter how corrupt he obviously is? Or will we wake up to the reality that MOST, almost ALL of them are corrupt, and we have to clean house across the board - perhaps ousting even the few who are honest, just to avoid even the appearance that we're going to keep any of the bad ones?
Anti-incumbency!!! Say it loud, we're mad and proud!
Gotta get rid of the bad guys - AND do it in a way that will let their replacements know that it can happen again! That never again will we be arm-twisted into keeping the assholes for years and years and years - viz., the proud racist Strom Thurmond, who was in the U.S. Senate and other office for over 50 years. And just by the way, died an incompetent and addled old man, still in the Senate at the age of 100.
Public office is not supposed to be a lifetime profession. And getting rich off the taxpayer's nickel is NOT an honorable means to personal wealth. Why is that so hard for politicians to understand? Why is it so hard for US to understand, such that when the fools screw up, we know to get rid of them?
When does GWB's trial on the above charges and more begin? I want it televised, including the hanging. OK, he won't be hanged, no matter how much he may deserve it - but can he go to prison? Please? Can we watch?
I remain, sir or madam, your obt. svt.,
Rich Miles
On June 1, 2012, an Egyptian court sentenced former president Hosni Mubarak to life in prison for failing to stop the killing of protestors in a demonstration last year.
Got that? Not for killing anyone - but for failing to stop the killings.
Now I ask you: why can't we do that here in America?
I mean, God knows we had a much worse criminal in the White House for 8 years. Just the short list of his crimes include election fraud and stealing at least one, possibly two national elections; nearly bankrupting the national budget to the tune of trillions of dollars, and then blaming it on his successor; and last but by no means least, the killing of over 4000 American soldiers and countless Iraqi soldiers and civilians, and maiming even more thousands on both sides, in an unnecessary and pointless war designed to a) avenge one man, his father, who was not even injured by any Iraqi, and b) get himself re-elected, on the belief that the American people would not vote out even the most incompetent leadership in wartime. Remember "Don't change horses in the middle of a stream", Lincoln's campaign slogan? I am virtually certain that the overweeningly stupid American electorate has never done that, voted out a president in wartime since then, and probably not before. Nixon took over for LBJ in Vietnam, but that was voluntary. Johnson quit.
So why can't WE try and convict the criminal who was in the White House for 8 years, and who has put this country in such a bloody-awful mess in so many ways? Why can't we avenge our national shame in electing him twice, and put the sumbitch in prison for the rest of his life? He's only 65 years old, and if we put him in prison for life, he'll likely stay there to serve as a national example for many more years than Mubarak, who is 84 and reportedly in poor health.
Look, I've said this so many times before, but it will serve my thesis to say it again: we must nail some of these people, most egregiously Bush, who by now is firmly established as the worst president in U.S. history - we must ensure that there are CONSEQUENCES to heinous acts like Bush's, or politicians will keep doing this kind of crap in the future, assured in the knowledge that they can GET AWAY WITH IT, to their own and their friends' enrichment (see tax breaks for the wealthy, over and over again, among other things).
I mean it, people - we all complain about what a bunch of crooks we have in Washington, and our respective statehouses and city halls, and I think it would not be overstating to say that it's gone on for hundreds of years and will continue for hundreds more, if we don't take steps to curtail it!
And really, the only steps that will have any HOPE of curtailing such behavior is to PUT THE BASTARDS IN JAIL!!! Or even, in extreme cases, execute a bunch of 'em. What more fitting judgment for GWB, who used US military personnel like his own personal game pieces in a war NO ONE wanted, except him and his coterie of war criminals? Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and many, many more?
I mean, am I wrong? Do you think the sumbitches will reform themselves on their own? There are politicians like Alan Grayson, Russ Feingold (sadly voted out of office), Dennis Kucinich, John Yarmuth, and a few more, who are not only honest, but will continue to be honest even to their own political detriment. Even after nearly 4 years, I can't say I'm sure where our current president falls on this continuum. I think he's more honest than not - but I don't know if I can call him honest.
But at any rate, the overwhelming majority of elected officers in this country are thieving, lying, say-anything-to-get-elected bastards! They craft and pass legislation that exempts themselves from the broader laws of the land, and they take bribes and let themselves be bought every day of the year. And yet there is no punishment, no consequences, nothing to HURT the bastards into stopping this crap. They are using taxpayer money to screw and hurt the taxpayers - you and me!
So will we keep believing that they are all assholes except OUR guy, and keep electing our guy, no matter how corrupt he obviously is? Or will we wake up to the reality that MOST, almost ALL of them are corrupt, and we have to clean house across the board - perhaps ousting even the few who are honest, just to avoid even the appearance that we're going to keep any of the bad ones?
Anti-incumbency!!! Say it loud, we're mad and proud!
Gotta get rid of the bad guys - AND do it in a way that will let their replacements know that it can happen again! That never again will we be arm-twisted into keeping the assholes for years and years and years - viz., the proud racist Strom Thurmond, who was in the U.S. Senate and other office for over 50 years. And just by the way, died an incompetent and addled old man, still in the Senate at the age of 100.
Public office is not supposed to be a lifetime profession. And getting rich off the taxpayer's nickel is NOT an honorable means to personal wealth. Why is that so hard for politicians to understand? Why is it so hard for US to understand, such that when the fools screw up, we know to get rid of them?
When does GWB's trial on the above charges and more begin? I want it televised, including the hanging. OK, he won't be hanged, no matter how much he may deserve it - but can he go to prison? Please? Can we watch?
I remain, sir or madam, your obt. svt.,
Rich Miles
Friday, April 13, 2012
Equal taxation - Why is this so hard?
by Rich Miles
Why is this such a difficult issue to resolve? Why isn't it axiomatic that all taxpayers should pay the same percentage of taxable income? Why did ANYONE, even the Bush "administration", ever believe that the rich should pay a lower percentage? And screw all that "class warfare" nonsense. If we were really engaged in class warfare, there would be dead rich people littering every street in the country.
Here's the reason why this issue is so difficult to resolve: Because the morons in our government who are charged with debating it and fixing it are almost ALL - are you ready for it? - RICH PEOPLE!!
Rich people who want all the money they can get more than they want to cure our nation's ills. Rich people who are so effin' greedy that they will use whatever ludicrous rhetoric they can choke out in debate rather than pay their fair share of taxes, who sincerely DO NOT CARE what a mess our government's budget is in, as long as they get theirs.
I don't know why this point has not been made more often. I do a lot of political reading, and I don't think I've ever seen it brought up before - the operant word in this issue is GREED!!!
Nothing else. Not national pride. Not class warfare. Not budgetary considerations. GREED. Primarily but not exclusively Republican greed. Exclusively the greed of our public servants. People WE elected to administer our government.
And instead of doing what we elected them for, they are serving almost exclusively their own GREED!!!
And dodging and weaving and making it someone else's fault. And completely ignoring the fact that we elected them to serve us.
GREED!! That is all it is on both sides of the aisle, though mostly the Republicans, simply by nature.
And the people who would be responsible for changing our laws so as to make this sort of thing less possible are THE SAME RICH, GREEDY, THIEVING ASSES who can't even admit that they're selling our nation down the river.
There aren't 10 members of the two houses of Congress who are worth the powder it would take to blow them up. Not 10 out of 535!! That's my estimate, but can you deny it? I don't think so.
And this is - most certainly and undeniably - what is causing our national debt to pierce the sky. What causes it to be counted in numbers bigger than any of us can even fathom: TRILLIONS!!! Well on the way to QUADRILLIONS.
And until we get rid of them, they'll keep doing it. The only thing that has even a chance of working is a massive anti-incumbent movement that is used in not one election cycle, not two, but THREE times running, until we have convinced our servants that we can do it - that we can get rid of them, and will. Even the very few who are doing their jobs must be dumped. Because we have to take our nation back.
We really have to. Otherwise it won't BE our nation any more.
Why is this such a difficult issue to resolve? Why isn't it axiomatic that all taxpayers should pay the same percentage of taxable income? Why did ANYONE, even the Bush "administration", ever believe that the rich should pay a lower percentage? And screw all that "class warfare" nonsense. If we were really engaged in class warfare, there would be dead rich people littering every street in the country.
Here's the reason why this issue is so difficult to resolve: Because the morons in our government who are charged with debating it and fixing it are almost ALL - are you ready for it? - RICH PEOPLE!!
Rich people who want all the money they can get more than they want to cure our nation's ills. Rich people who are so effin' greedy that they will use whatever ludicrous rhetoric they can choke out in debate rather than pay their fair share of taxes, who sincerely DO NOT CARE what a mess our government's budget is in, as long as they get theirs.
I don't know why this point has not been made more often. I do a lot of political reading, and I don't think I've ever seen it brought up before - the operant word in this issue is GREED!!!
Nothing else. Not national pride. Not class warfare. Not budgetary considerations. GREED. Primarily but not exclusively Republican greed. Exclusively the greed of our public servants. People WE elected to administer our government.
And instead of doing what we elected them for, they are serving almost exclusively their own GREED!!!
And dodging and weaving and making it someone else's fault. And completely ignoring the fact that we elected them to serve us.
GREED!! That is all it is on both sides of the aisle, though mostly the Republicans, simply by nature.
And the people who would be responsible for changing our laws so as to make this sort of thing less possible are THE SAME RICH, GREEDY, THIEVING ASSES who can't even admit that they're selling our nation down the river.
There aren't 10 members of the two houses of Congress who are worth the powder it would take to blow them up. Not 10 out of 535!! That's my estimate, but can you deny it? I don't think so.
And this is - most certainly and undeniably - what is causing our national debt to pierce the sky. What causes it to be counted in numbers bigger than any of us can even fathom: TRILLIONS!!! Well on the way to QUADRILLIONS.
And until we get rid of them, they'll keep doing it. The only thing that has even a chance of working is a massive anti-incumbent movement that is used in not one election cycle, not two, but THREE times running, until we have convinced our servants that we can do it - that we can get rid of them, and will. Even the very few who are doing their jobs must be dumped. Because we have to take our nation back.
We really have to. Otherwise it won't BE our nation any more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Updated: 07/23/2012 12:37 pm