JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-dont-know-why-but-this-still-astounds.html (58 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1208324683-590899  Mulliga at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:44:43 +0000

In the incredibly unlikely event that there _is_ another civil war, they're going to wish they clung to their guns and religion.

jsid-1208336657-590901  David at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:04:17 +0000

As a young naive Berkeley college student working for Dukakis in '88, even I could tell that his "why don't Iowa farmers just grow Belgian endive?" was a really, really stupid thing to say. It kinda opened my eyes a bit that many of my fellow students didn't see anything wrong with the statement.

jsid-1208347086-590902  Roland the Headless Thompson G at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:58:06 +0000

I'll tell you something, and I sense that there is something very wrong in it, but I can't quite put my finger on it. While Whole Foods may not have a retail presence in Iowa, quite a bit of the fresh and processed pork products sold in their stores is raised in Iowa. Small, family operations that I understand don't exactly allow their owners to live in the lap of luxury. Any thoughts?

jsid-1208352050-590904  Bilgeman at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:20:50 +0000

At least in the East,it looks eerily familiar.


Should serve as a reminder to all sides...

jsid-1208352103-590905  karrde at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:21:43 +0000

One the one hand, part of the story in the 1860 election was that several (I think three) regional branches of the Democrat party each ran their own Presidential Candidate.

The brand-spanking-new Republican party ran only one, and the dissolute Whigs didn't field anyone.

Lincoln won, but that victory was the final straw that broke the camel's back. The long-simmering cultural/legal differences between North and South produced the series of secessions that presaged the war.

There is no clear-cut geographical line at work here, and I doubt we are about to see two Democrat-party branches emerge from the Obama/Clinton split.

That doesn't mean it's impossible. Nor does it mean that regional/sectional differences won't arise.

That also doesn't mean that we won't find some other pathway towards a re-enactment of some form of Civil War.

If (at minimum) one of the two sides of this dispute persists in misunderstanding the other, then there will be trouble. Frankly, that thought is scary.

It is also another reason for me to keep a good grip on my firearms, my religious practice, and my family/friends. Because I might need all three, even if I'm living close to a large urban center.

jsid-1208355658-590911  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:20:58 +0000

The Great Divide between the Left and the Right in this country just keeps getting wider, and nowhere is that better illustrated than here.

And it's those damn maroons who won't unite with us that are causing all the damn problems. If they'd only realise that we're smarter and more thoughtful than they are, and we've really got their best interests in mind! Well, their best interests that help us out, but that's just a Good Thing! Those bastards won't come agree with us!

If we could just force them to do it our way.... What? No! It's not SOCIALISM or COMMUNISM! How DARE YOU QUESTION MY [ethics/patrotism/victimhood]!! And don't dare compare their disagreement with our justified and righteous (even though there is no objective right/wrong) attempts to derail any and everything that dis-uniter Bush does! They're not the same thing!


It's almost like they've never heard of "Do it again, but this time, HARDER!"

Well, at least 1 has. To little effect.

jsid-1208357767-590912  Sarah at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:56:07 +0000

Because I might need all three, even if I'm living close to a large urban center.

I'd say especially if you're living close to a large, urban center. Things have changed a lot in the last 150 years. The inner cities are filled with angry, shiftless people living off government entitlements. If/when things start going bad, it's going to look something like New Orleans post-Katrina all across this country.

jsid-1208365366-590916  DirtCrashr at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:02:46 +0000

Arugula is by definition elititst - just ask Alice Waters, or "Let them eat foi-gras."

jsid-1208369263-590918  NASCAR Wife at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:07:43 +0000

TO: Roland the Headless Thompson G

It used to be (in the Midwest) that hogs were called “mortgage lifters.” No one really farmed hogs for a living. Its dirty, nasty work and one of the best ways to ruin your health. In addition, an individual farmer had to balance the number of hogs he kept versus the acres of land he farmed because to eliminate the hog waste he spread it on his fields. Most farmers kept some hogs to pay the mortgage because their price was sufficiently high to guarantee a return and their price remained steady year to year. Today, large corporations farm hogs using industrial techniques. No longer does an individual farmer keep 20-50 hogs. Today 500+ hogs are kept in specially designed barns just like chickens or turkeys. The smell is indescribable. The volume of waste from these facilities is enormous and is causing pollution throughout the Midwest on a monumental scale. The worst result though has been that the price of hogs has dropped though the floor. Small farmers can no longer make money by raising just a few hogs each year. Good for us city dwellers because our pork is cheaper. Bad for the small farmers because they have lost a steady source of income.

jsid-1208369815-590920  Markadelphia at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:16:55 +0000

"most Iowa farmers are more familiar with iceberg lettuce than arugula,"

Actually, most Iowans run across the border to shop at Whole Foods and are pretty hip to the organic scene. All of my in laws are from there and I have spent many a holiday and summer weekend in the "state that proved me wrong."

"But millions of Middle Americans did"

I don't think so.You are the official spokesperson now for millions of Americans? Kevin, other than myself, is there anyone you know personally that challenges your point of view?

"The Great Divide between the Left and the Right in this country just keeps getting wider, and nowhere is that better illustrated than here."

I've been thinking lately that it is not so much of a divide as it is growing pains. You can see evidence of this as Hillary Clinton feebly tries to exploit Obama's remarks for gain using Rove like tactics. She is operating under an old paradigm. So are many of you.

Pundits on both sides, including you, Kevin, are clinging (sorry, couldn't resist :)) to a political landscape that is fading. I fall back from time to time myself. I think people are beginning to see, in their own lives as well as generally speaking, that our current problems are too serious to waste time on crap like this. They are moving past it.

To put it another way, I could really care less what Pastor Hagee said about Catholics or gays in New Orleans. It does not affect my image of McCain. I also don't think McCain is a war monger because he sang a song about bombing Iran. The guy made a joke...it was funny....this would be an example of how the left needs to lighten up.

If John McCain said something similar to what Obama said...or if Bush or Cheney did...something like many liberals are naive dumb asses, when it comes to the ways of the world, and they cling to their peace symbols and protests as a way to cope, I would say...yeah...and? So what? It's actually true, btw, as was Obama's statement.

The times they are a changin', folks and I think some of you need to shake off that ingroup bias you have and start listening to what people are saying out there. Small town folk are voting for different reasons. I only need point to voter turnout, triple or even quadruple than in past primaries, in Obama's victories in many of the rural states he has won thus far.

jsid-1208370747-590921  Last in line at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:32:27 +0000

...and I grew up 5 minutes from Davenport, Iowa. Spent almost 27 years there.

jsid-1208372082-590922  Yosemite Sam at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:54:42 +0000

"most Iowans run across the border to shop at Whole Foods"

Just had to laugh. So people in Des Moines drive two hours to the closest border to shop at a Whole Foods when they can get fresh, locally grown food close to where they live. Whole Foods is overpriced corporate crap. Hell, even here in the DC area, we have local farmer's markets and an Amish market that has much better meat and produce than anything you can buy at Whole Foods. I don't think MOST people in Iowa think a trip to Whole Foods is worth a four hour drive round trip.

jsid-1208373417-590923  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:16:57 +0000

. So people in Des Moines drive two hours to the closest border to shop at a Whole Foods

RickenFrickenFrckkinGolblurbian Sam:

When will you learn? If Obama said it and you think otherwise, you're wrong. You should unite with him - otherwise, you're a splitter, and a lowlife

Don't you know he's a uniter? Surely he knew that Iowans are driving hours to get to a whole foods, and are bitter about the price of fuel to do that.

jsid-1208373476-590924  joe at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:17:56 +0000

i agree its sad how the elites control everything

jsid-1208375868-590925  Markadelphia at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:57:48 +0000

"I don't think MOST people in Iowa think a trip to Whole Foods is worth a four hour drive round trip."

Well, they make that long of a trip to Cabale's!

jsid-1208376658-590928  geekWithA.45 at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:10:58 +0000

[cue: AgeOfAquarius]

The harmonic convergence is coming! The old paradigm is melting away, to make room for the new!

Stop clinging to your bitterness, your guns, and your religion!

Turn your eyes to the glittering generalities!

The great mass movement is upon us!

[M'delphia spins in circles until he faints]

[screech /AgeofAquarious]

Right then, that's quite enough of that.

Whole Foods is teh suq, it's for pretentious people who like paying too much.

Trader Joe's, baby!

And remember, if it says "Organic" on the label, that means something pooped on it!

jsid-1208377085-590930  DJ at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:18:05 +0000

"And remember, if it says "Organic" on the label, that means something pooped on it!"

Finally, an explanation!

I always thought "organic" meant "made of carbon".

jsid-1208377155-590931  geekWithA.45 at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:19:15 +0000

DJ: LOL! GREAT comeback!

jsid-1208377219-590932  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:20:19 +0000

Well, they make that long of a trip to Cabale's!

Cabela's, Mark?

Considering the subject matter, again, most people would be a little careful, seeing as how their purported candidate, the man of the common people, just screwed the pooch royally.

Most people I know buy Cabela's mail order, by the way.

But yes, sometimes it's worth the drive. An hour, or three, sometimes.

But this is where your snide rejoinder falls apart - they do that once, maybe twice a year, Mark.

Not anywhere as often as they shop for food.

(Now, care to get back to either addressing your purported proof that Obama's not anti-gun, or at least apologizing to Bush for the S-CHIP slanders, or squaring your comparison of Bush's actions and history to only looking at Obama's prepared and edited words? Or at least do me the favor of announcing you're Fermat-ting them.)

jsid-1208377391-590933  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:23:11 +0000

I always thought "organic" meant "made of carbon".


As you well should know, they know the questions to ask themselves and others, and the labels to use.

You've seen how "organic" came to mean "unprocessed shit", and after talking to Mark for this long, it should be obvious why it never occured to the "watermelons" overloading the meaning of the word why it would be a problem.

jsid-1208377456-590934  Markadelphia at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:24:16 +0000

And now comes the comment that you all have been waiting for...demanding that I give you..I have to admit that even I was shocked when I heard this just a few short minutes ago driving home....


Read and weep, folks. Could this group be part of the "millions" who were offended as Kevin says? And what could this piece of legislation be that Mr. Schoenke is talking about?


So, could it be true? Did the "gun grabber" Obama actually vote in favor of gun rights? Are their some gun owners that favor Obama? Well, Unix and Ed asked for proof that Obama was not a gun grabber. There's your proof, fellas.

According to Schoenke, he thinks the latest furor is "a bunch of nonsense." He also went on to say that Senator Obama is a "firm supporter of 2nd amendment rights."

Oh, but wait...according to other gun advocacy groups (and I am CERTAIN everyone here :)) the American Hunters and Shooters Association aren't a "real" gun advocacy group. They are anti-gun. Odd, because their web site sure looks like they enjoy guns quite a bit.

So, there you have it, folks. A group of gun owners who weren't offended by Obama's comments, have endoresed him, and actually listed key legislation that he voted for in favor of 2nd amendment rights. Shocking...appalling....whatever will you do?

jsid-1208377579-590936  Markadelphia at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:26:19 +0000

Oops...yes, Cabala's...I have bad eyesight....

Oh and "there" not "their" in the above comment. D'oh!

jsid-1208377623-590937  Markadelphia at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:27:03 +0000

And "endorsed"....why don't I proof read?

jsid-1208378212-590938  thirdpower at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:36:52 +0000

AHSA, the organization funded and formed by anti-gun advocates. The same ones who have near zero membership, endorse MAIG and all their goals, and whose express purpose is to attack the NRA.

That group of "gun owners".


jsid-1208378213-590939  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:36:53 +0000

There's your proof, fellas.


From... AHSA.

On.. TSM.

You posted "proof" from AHSA.

On.. Kevin Baker's site.

[Wanders off whistling a bemused smile.]

I'll be back to see the aftermath later.


Jesus (Oh! Wait! Sorry! Obama!) Wept.

jsid-1208378294-590940  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:38:14 +0000

[whistling AND WITH a bemused smile]

Sorry, guys, I'm just.. just..

What can I say? Brain fart. Divide by Zero error.

Even I didn't see that one coming.

jsid-1208378608-590941  Russell at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:43:28 +0000

Um, U-J, I don't think you are using 'bemused' correctly.

Amused might be what you want to use.

1. bewildered or confused.
2. lost in thought; preoccupied.

1. pleasurably entertained, occupied, or diverted.
2. displaying amusement: an amused expression on her face.
3. aroused to mirth.

Let's use them in a sentence: Mark is constantly bemused (def. 1) and the results are that a number of us are amused (def 1,3, at least).

jsid-1208378775-590942  geekWithA.45 at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:46:15 +0000



That...was transcendental.

jsid-1208379309-590943  Markadelphia at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:55:09 +0000

Unix, you asked for proof that Obama is not a gun grabber. I gave you a link that showed how he voted in the Senate. You and I must have different definitions of "proof." So, I am asking you....what do you think about his vote on the Vitter amendment?

thirpower, You are going to have to define zero membership.

Also, it has been drilled into me that gun advocates are open minded. Any chance of that happening with ASHA?

jsid-1208379432-590944  DJ at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:57:12 +0000

It's real, folks! Goddamnedest thing I ever read, too.

I just can't help recalling this.

jsid-1208379595-590945  thirdpower at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:59:55 +0000

No. "Near Zero" means they refuse to publish their numbers and it is estimated at less than 1000 nationwide. Were you to do any actual research on them, you would discover that they are run by anti-gun advocates including former Brady board members.


Let’s remember how Obama supports the shooting community again:

* Advocating that handguns be banned
* Advocating a comprehensive ban on all semi-automatic firearms
* Sponsoring legislation that makes it harder to get a license to possess a firearm, which is required under Illinois law.
* Voting against a measure as US Senator that prevents firearms manufacturers being sued out of existence because their products can be used by criminals.
* Banning any ammunition that could be used in an “assault weapon” which would include many sporting cartridges.
* Banning all firearms sale within five miles of a school or park, meaning there would be very few places in the United States where guns could be sold.

jsid-1208379817-590946  DJ at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:03:37 +0000

"Most people I know buy Cabela's mail order, by the way."

I do, several times a year. The closest one is about 370 miles away.

But I can buy food, even arugula (should I ever want any), at a big supermarket only four miles from here. I did so, in fact, right after lunch today. I left the arugula there, though. It was silicon based, and I prefer organic.

Ah, but what might have been. A brand new Cabelas opened up recently, right on the route I used to take to work in St. Louis. It's a good thing I left, as I'd be dead broke by now.

jsid-1208380610-590947  Last in line at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:16:50 +0000

You heard it on the way home you said...did you hear about your proof on Air America by chance?

jsid-1208381241-590948  Markadelphia at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:27:21 +0000

Obama voted in favor of a conceal and carry law, while in the Illinois legislature, that would allow retired policeman to carry a concealed weapon.

Here is a quote from Obama that best sums his position and I agree completely with it.

"I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions." 2-11-08

Seems pretty sensible to me. Probably not, though, for some of you folks.

Last, Schoenke was on Ed Schultz, technically not Air America but on the same station.

jsid-1208381944-590950  thirdpower at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:39:04 +0000

"“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

Kind of hard to Carry when you outlaw handguns. Of course now he's denying he filled out that questionaire even though it was in his own handwriting.

jsid-1208382158-590952  Roland the Headless Thompson G at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:42:38 +0000

Yeah, on the face of it, it is a sensible statement. Take guns away from the criminals, and leave the law abiding alone. What's not to like? Just how would he propose to do that, though? Virtually all legislation concerning firearms that I have ever seen, does exactly the opposite. All in the name of public safety, and none of it disarming the criminal element. So who ends up paying a price?

jsid-1208382282-590953  Markadelphia at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:44:42 +0000

"All in the name of public safety, and none of it disarming the criminal element. So who ends up paying a price?"

That is a good point and I think it is something that Senator Obama needs to be educated on...any takers?

jsid-1208382492-590954  thirdpower at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:48:12 +0000

As a board member of the Joyce Foundation, he was party to increased funding to the Violence Policy Center which called for hunting rifles to be classified as "sniper rifles" and included under the 1934 GCA, it's ammunition to be classified as "armor piercing, and scopes to be banned.

He originally felt the DC handgun ban was constitutional before he realized that position wasn't politically expedient:

But the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he "...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."

As for educating him, I've attempted to contact his office countless times over gun control. I received platitudes from his secretaries and nothing at all from letters and e-mails. Obviously he doesn't WANT to be educated. He has his agenda. It doesn't include those who are 'bitter'.

jsid-1208382600-590955  DJ at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:50:00 +0000

"All in the name of public safety, and none of it disarming the criminal element. So who ends up paying a price?"

We do. You see, a "reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure" is what is "reasonable, thoughtful" TO WHOM? This is the caveat, the buyer beware that induces morons to project onto what he said whatever they want him to have meant. It is the escape hatch is always, always present in Obama's and all politicians' blitherings that induces the gullible to support them willingly, then wonder, "What the hell happened?" when reality sets in after they are elected.

jsid-1208383719-590956  Markadelphia at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:08:39 +0000

Tell you what. I will make all of you a deal. If (and at this point it is a big IF) Obama becomes president, here is my proposal.

If federal agents come to your homes and seize your guns, at any time during an Obama presidency, so you are left without any means to defend yourselves, then I will admit the following:

President Obama is a gun grabber and has no respect for the 2nd amendment.

If, however, guns are not seized and you all still have them and the ability to defend yourselves, then you will admit the following:

President Obama is not a gun grabber and he has respect of the 2nd amendment.

I propose that we do it on a quarterly basis. Several here have said that Obama will start taking guns away after he is elected. So...let's say April 15th, 2009...a day we will know and love....we will have our first quarterly report and see where we are at... agreed?

jsid-1208384331-590957  thirdpower at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:18:51 +0000

Oh please. Leave the theatrics out of it. I don't consider Bush to be a "gun grabber" (not a friend either) but it did occur during his watch. Obama is no friend of gun owners. His own actions prove it. While he's had a few "pro-gun" votes, the overwhelming majority of them, as well as his public statements, show where he stands.

BTW, here's his statement on CCW for police:

"I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms."

Everyone else can just go to hell.

jsid-1208385101-590958  Roland the Headless Thompson G at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:31:41 +0000

Obama doesn't need anymore education. He has access to all of the same studies, reports, surveys, and polls that the rest of us are. And probably before anybody else. He's studied constitutional law. He knows what the 2nd Amendment is in place for. He knows that gun control measures, get ready for it-DO. NOT. WORK. He has all of the hard data. So what is the point? Here are some possibilities:

- He just don't like guns (too bad)

- He's counting on the ignorance of the average voter in order to get elected. The finger in the wind thing.

- He knows that firearms in the hands of the citizenry runs counter to his and his party's agenda (control of the populace)
Personally, I think it's the last one. And reluctant to go down that road again. If Obama institutes a gun grab, I think the honest thing to do would be to literally lead the parade to my door himself. He should bring with him, a large number of people that he doesn't like.

jsid-1208385625-590959  thirdpower at Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:40:25 +0000

From his issues page:

"Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms."

Get that? A former "Constitutional Law Professor believes the BOR "creates" rights. Obviously he missed the lecture on the inherent nature of them.

jsid-1208395832-590970  juris_imprudent at Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:30:32 +0000

CCW for retired cops? That's your big Obama-is-pro-2nd evidence? Mark, that is lame, even for you.

jsid-1208396144-590972  Markadelphia at Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:35:44 +0000

Well, now you know why I don't bother.

jsid-1208396592-590973  Kevin Baker at Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:43:12 +0000

Makes you wonder why we do, doesn't it?

jsid-1208396898-590974  thirdpower at Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:48:18 +0000

"Well, now you know why I don't bother."

Well, if you wanted an echo chamber for your worship, a site that doesn't support Obama isn't the place to go. Especially when you try and claim that an anti-gun politician being endorsed by an anti-gun shell group is really pro-gun on a pro-gun site.

jsid-1208399388-590978  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:29:48 +0000


Thanks, but I meant bemused. It's perplexing for someone who's been reading the site for as long as Mark has, to not know that AHSA is a false flag organization.

When I get challenged on something, I tend to buckle down and try and cover all the bases better in my response. I'm just bemused by how Mark's idea of "debate" has nothing to do with facts, proof, or anything other than (erroneous) words.

Well, now you know why I don't bother.

We've known for quite some time, Mark. It's not why you are saying you don't bother. No, nowhere close.

If federal agents come to your homes and seize your guns, at any time during an Obama presidency, so you are left without any means to defend yourselves, then I will admit the following:

Mark, you can't even admit when you're wrong on obviously provable things. There's no way even then you'd admit error. You make statements without any factual support, and then when the facts turn against you, you keep insisting that no, they're wrong! Wrong!

And if it gets to that? We likely won't have an internet anymore.

Now thirdpower's jumped in and pointed out what I've said - and more - and yet you're STILL arguing that he's not Anti-gun!


And you're calling us unreasonable, and unreasoning. When we give you concrete facts and examples.

And you give us - in desperation - an endorsement from *today*, (from a blatantly antigun group under a false flag), and one vote. One.

jsid-1208405466-590983  Russell at Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:11:06 +0000


Yeah, wasn't sure which way to read that.

I did get a degree in pedantry, minor in nitpicking. :)


Fess up, "Mark" is really the pseudo name you've been using, right? Just to stir the pot now and then?

I mean, using AHSA? Brilliant, but I think you may have tipped your hand on that one!

jsid-1208442795-590993  Kevin Baker at Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:33:15 +0000

Fess up, "Mark" is really the pseudo name you've been using, right? Just to stir the pot now and then?

You give me FAR too much (little?) credit. If I tried to "reason" the way he does, I'd sprain my corpus callosum.

jsid-1208444213-590995  Russell at Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:56:53 +0000

I figured you just followed Jack Nicholson's character in "As Good As It Gets"

"I think of a conservative, and I take away reason and accountability."

jsid-1208447559-590997  DJ at Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:52:39 +0000

Not to change the subject, but Kevin's post, to which these comments are appended, was about the election that's comin' up. Last night was the final debate between Obama and Clinton.

No, I didn't watch it. I cleaned the cat box, rearranged my sock drawer, and ordered a replacement for a leaky valve on the washing machine. First things first, y'see.

But Ed Morrissey watched it, and his analysis is short and sweet. The high points are:

"Thanks to a surprisingly tenacious set of questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from ABC moderaters Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous, Barack Obama got exposed over and over again as an empty suit, ..."

Now where have I said, er, um, I mean heard that before?

"... while Hillary cleaned his clock."

Which means that the main attaction will be 15 rounds at Denver. Likely a lot of political blood will flow, and the Gore will be deep.

"However, the big winner didn’t even take the stage tonight."

Perhaps this is the political equivalent of Midway?

"The winner of this debate? John McCain. Both Democrats came out of this diminished, but Obama got destroyed in this exchange. If superdelegates had begun to reconsider their support of Obama after Crackerquiddick, they’re speed-dialing Hillary after watching Gibson dismember Obama on national TV tonight."

His funniest line is:

"Obama, however, never did figure out the First Rule of Holes."

Again, where have I observed THAT before?

On the economy, he notes:

"By the time Gibson got around to the issues, Obama looked lost and upset. It got worse when Gibson asked about capital-gains tax rates, which Obama has pledged to raise. When Gibson repeatedly pointed out that decreasing the rates actually increased the revenues, Obama simply couldn’t come up with an answer, stammering while trying to change the subject."

But the Obamassiah has all the answers, right? Methinks he is actually as clueless about economic matters as was Jimmy Carter, and he just showed such to a remarkable degree. He is an amateur, folks, just another windbag.

And finally, we come to guns:

"On guns, both Hillary and Obama stumbled through tortured explanations of how they support a Constitutional right for individuals to own guns while backing gun bans like the one in DC."

Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?

jsid-1208448364-590999  thirdpower at Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:06:04 +0000

Between the two of them, I actually gave the debate to Obama. He dodged and avoided but he also turned every slam Hillary made against him back on her. She kept falling back on "I'm old, vote for me".

jsid-1208458060-591013  DJ at Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:47:40 +0000

And now, this is related, hilarious, and purely sickening, all at once. It an audio clip of Dennis Kucinich, form Mayor of Cleveland and former presidential candidate, being asked about taxes by Neal Boortz.

Listen for yourself, but not the following gem by Kucinich, and note his answers to Neal's questions before stating it:

"... and what I'm saying is, that tax cuts are used to redistribute the wealth upwards, and I believe that the tax cuts should be redistributed so that people who are in the middle class and in the lower tax rungs get a fair share of the benefits of a tax cut, and they didn't."

The depth of that level of ignorance numbs the mind.

Consider: The Bush tax cuts removed six million people from the bottom end of the federal income tax rolls. Those six million people used to pay taxes, but now they don't, and the reason is that the Bush tax cuts reduced the rates and such that apply to their incomes. You cannot give greater income tax relief to any person than to eliminate their income tax obligations altogether, and the Bush tax cuts did that to six million taxpayers at the low end of the scale.

And Dennis Kucinich doesn't think the cuts were fair to them.

He follows with this:

"My tax philosophy is that, if you earn more, you oughta pay a little bit more in taxes ... and since the 1950's we've seen an inversion of the tax structure, which has allowed the people at the top to pay an increasingly smaller percentage ..."

Yup. In the 1950's, the top marginal tax rate was 95% (if my memory is correct; I didn't go check it).

Astounding, isn't it?

Now, contrast that with Obamassiah, who wants to increase the tax rates applied to capital gains, despite the simple fact that the reduction of the capital gains tax rates under the Bush administration increased the tax revenues gathered thereby. What could possibly be his reason for wanting to do so? If it is to increase revenue, then he shows unmistakable evidence of abysmmal stupidity. If it is because he wants to hurt those who benefit by selling capital assets, then he shows unmistakable evidence of, well, what, exactly? Hatred of the wealthy? Wealth envy? Hatred of capitalism? A desire to reduce economic activity?

What is the problem that increasing tax rates is the cure for?

jsid-1208460297-591016  Russell at Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:24:57 +0000



jsid-1208462923-591019  Kevin Baker at Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:08:43 +0000


It'd be funnier if it wasn't true!

jsid-1208475657-591030  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:40:57 +0000

Russell FTW.

jsid-1208568128-591105  DJ at Sat, 19 Apr 2008 01:22:08 +0000

Ed Morrissey gets it. He discusses Obama's desire to double the capital gains tax rate. Here is most of his discussion:

"Read and listen very carefully to this. The higher priority for Obama isn’t to raise revenue; it’s to ensure fairness. In order to do that, he will have the government take a bigger share of the gains and redistribute them through social programs to others. The pretense of having more money acts as a veneer for good, old-fashioned redistributionism

"And his example shows his bias. He talks about billionaires paying a different rate than secretaries on income, but that’s purposeful. The idea behind a lower capital gains tax is to encourage risk-taking. The secretary in this parable garners an income at much lower risk because investors have taken a risk in creating her job. When the risk succeeds, it generates much more taxable income across the board. When it doesn’t, the investors lose a lot of money.

"If the risk carries a heavier tax burden, less money will go towards investment. People will instead put their money into safer, less risk-intense areas, such as savings or low-yield bonds and commodities such as gold. That will create fewer opportunities for employment, which translates across the board into less revenue for the government as well as a stalled economy. The surest way to start an economic disaster is to increase penalties for investment.

"Obama’s blindness on capital gains reveals a hard-Left mindset. He sees investors always profiting and never losing, while the people who work at jobs created by successful investment as victims of this exchange rather than the beneficiaries of it. Obama wants to use the heavy hand of government to take away the rewards of risk from those who invested, and instead redistribute it to those who took no risk to create economic growth. In doing so, he will kill the engine that drives the American economy.

"Obama either fails to understand how a free-market economy grows, or simply doesn’t care. Either way, it makes him a dangerous choice for the Presidency."

Yup. He'll change things.

 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>