Thursday, August 27, 2009

Despite multiple "tax hike" referendums failing at the voting booth, the leftist tyrants that lord over the state of California are fully prepared to completely ignore all common sense and the will of the electorate, and screw its citizens:

Even higher taxes coming for Californians

Lower brackets and reduced deductions mean yet higher payments to Sacramento for 2009.

By Shane Goldmacher

August 27, 2009

Reporting from Sacramento - While Californians are still feeling the sting of income and sales tax hikes signed into law earlier this year, now comes news that state tax authorities plan to take a little more from their pockets.

For only the second time in 30 years, the tax board is lowering the point where each tax bracket begins, bumping many people into a higher category. At the same time, officials are cutting back some deductions. Everyone will pay more, even people whose bracket or income doesn't change.

Highest taxes in the nation already, and these morons still feel it isn't enough already. Jesus.

But wait, you racists, you haven't funded this diamond rings for crackwhores program fully. The $200K a year bureaucrats in charge of this necessary government safety net are specialer than you or your children or your mortgage, so we'd like to rape your personal income budget just a wee bit more.

And these are the sort of politicians and administrators that Obamacare supporters think could effectively and responsibly run a national socialized health care system?


Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Ted's dead, baby. Ted's dead.

Ted Kennedy bites the big one:

HYANNIS PORT, Mass. – Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, last surviving brother in an American political dynasty and one of the most influential senators in history, died at his home on Cape Cod after a yearlong struggle with brain cancer. He was 77.

Oddly, I think I hated this moron more for his tyrannical, anti-liberty politics than the for fact that he murdered Mary Jo Kopechne, but, in my defense, that crash was ancient history to someone my age. It still certainly colors my emotions towards him as a public figure. I can't sympathize with or get behind the outpouring of grief for this dirtbag, any more than I could for Michael Jackson or other celebrities that get away with major crimes. I might be a little more gracious of someone of his cloth without an incident like this coloring my views. But who knows. I was so disgusted by the mean-spirited comments from leftists that I read about Robert Novak after his passing, I feel absolutely no obligation to be the least bit diplomatic when it comes to liberal-fascist political figures any longer.

Still, though, as tragic, unforgivable and vile his actions were that night in 1969 on Martha’s Vineyard, it was really his leftist politics that have damaged this nation much more than his drunken escapades and lack of morality turned deadly. So many of his stances on various issues eschewed the notions of individual freedom and responsibility, and promoted the growing in loco parentis Meta-State which threatens all logic and personal choice. He has favored creating a bloated and restrictive socialist health care system over tort reform or the minimizing of federal interstate commerce interference. He supported bitterly inane school busing programs which made political pawns of peoples' children and only furthered racial divides and ill will. His attitudes on illegal immigration were almost frightening in their irrationality and unmerited arrogance. He was constantly behind the state theft of personal income via taxation, and redistributing wealth to ineffective government programs and labyrinthine bureaucracy, all the while feigning altruism.

I cannot, in any fashion, say I'm the least bit moved by Kennedy's death. I do however, as in any instance like this, feel for the family, and wish them my condolences.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Obama-nazis going after Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck calls dickhead Obama a "racist," which is exactly what he is, and Obama's leftist media cronies go after him with a threat of a boycott.

Let's ignore the fact that anyone disagreeing with the left on anything has been labeled a racist for decades... everyday... it's perfectly fine when they race-bait. Bush was constantly called a nazi and a racist. Same with Palin. Heck, anyone even remotely criticizing Obama on anything has been called that at least once or twice.

Heck, here's a perfect example of leftist "I don't get the irony." "Don't support those who hate." Man, I wish I could make this stuff up. Beck accusing someone else, Obama, of hate is hate. But the reverse? Naaaaaaaah.

While I'm fairly certain Fox News will stand up for Glenn Beck to some degree, more so than the shits at CNN would have, and find new advertisers, it's time to stand up against companies who support the left in their witch-hunts.

Sure, they're free to advertise where they want, and should be, but you're free to boycott them, just like the left would.

So far make sure to boycott: Travelocity, ConAgra, Roche, Radio Shack, Sanofi-Aventis, SC Johnson, Progressive Insurance & Geico.

Hey, Geico, fuck you and your little lizard. And Radio Shack, you only sell crap anyway.


The race-baiting entitlement-whores at the NAACP got in on the Beck-bashing.
Mr. Beck’s statement was irresponsible and inflammatory at a time when as a nation we are attempting to engage in a constructive dialogue on race.
Really? Here's an idea, fuckwits - if this is in anyway true, how about getting folks on the left to apologize for calling anyone that doesn't agree with their policies and positions on race "racist" like every second of every day, and ending the practice in the future?
Beck’s statements are an attempt to divide when we need to be united, an attempt to inflame with rhetoric when we need to discuss with thoughtfulness the serious question of race.
Is that what calling someone a "racist" does? Gee, geese, look at them ganders.

It is a futile effort to distract from the serious issues of health care, the economy and the environment – issues that President Obama is tackling with foresight and fortitude.
Riiiiiiight. Because bringing up some minor comment made by a talk-show host in one little segment, calling people to arms to boycott his show, is really, really, really focusing on the above-mentioned "serious issues." I mean, that wouldn't be distracting at all, to make a big deal over a word tossed about by the left on a daily basis, would it?
How could the President be a racist?
By behaving in a racist fashion, dipshits.

Friday, August 07, 2009

Only a matter of time until protesters get called "terrorist"

Yesterday, when I mentioned how dipshit Harry Reid had accused American citizens exercising their right to free speech and assembly of sabotaging the democratic process, I almost said "it'll only be a matter of time before some dickwad calls us 'terrorists'." And the only reason I didn't was because I actually decided it was TOO obvious to mention.

But who is the massive asswipe, whose mother must have been a syphilis ridden whore to have produced an offspring with such a warped mind (ha ha, I'm better at name-calling than you are!), who actually did call those criticizing the Democratic attempt to socialize health care "political terrorists"?

Steven Pearlstein at the Washington Post.

I'm not even going to bother to counter his inane editorial. At least not until he and his paper apologizes to me and everyone else who does not support this proposed continued rape of taxpayer income and personal freedom masquerading as "reform." Even if he were absolutely correct in his reasoning for supporting the current plan, which he is not, it is beyond offensive to be labeling anyone exercising their right to free speech as "terrorists," whatever their motives. Unless they're blowing up buildings, or shooting up daycare centers, or whatever, they're not terrorists, they're just folks actively engaged at speaking out against and stopping legislation - even if we assume their motives are selfish or corrupt - which you are free to do. But selfishness or protesting or preventing legislation from passing within legal means wouldn't be terrorism. It's called liberty.

Steven, your mother is a fucking assmuncher. How's that feel? How's it feel to see someone you probably love and respect insulted? My grandparents are completely against this plan too. And they're like 80. They're not terrorists. Fuck you.

Of course, these are just words. He'll defend his while decrying mine, I'm sure. He can obviously dish it out, so he'd better get used to taking it. Well, I'm guessing from his stupidity, he probably takes donkey cocks up the ass on weekends, but I have no real way of verifying that.

In any case, it's great these idiots keep mentioning how we'll get to keep private insurance. Wow. We'll get to pay our own insurance costs, AND pay extra taxes to cover fuckers who refuse to insure themselves. Wheeee.

Get it yet?

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Speaking of Health Care...

Jumping on the Democratic Party's new "Protesters are the New Child Molester" strategic talking point bandwagon, Senate Majority Leader & world-class champion ass-clown Harry Reid declares dissent to health care "reform" as a threat to the nebulous "democratic process," by which of course he means, to the Federal government stealing your income by way of taxes, taking control of your personal lives, and shoving another bloated government program down your throats despite the fact that a major chunk of the population is completely uninterested in giving up their individual liberty and personal freedom - or in giving up on the free market and replacing it with a tyrannical socialist system.
WASHINGTON – The Senate's most powerful Democrat on Thursday scolded health care protesters dogging his party's lawmakers at local meetings, arguing that some critics on the political right have run out of ideas — and ditched their civic manners. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada accused the protesters of trying to "sabotage" the democratic process.
In case you're wondering, yes, Harry Reid really is that much of a dick. Amazed yet by the arrogance and short-term memory loss displayed by these idiotic douchebags? I've already addressed the irrationality of this line of argument, but still, "sabotage"? How on Earth does expressing opinions or protesting "sabotage" democracy?

Make sure hears about this fishy post!!!

Chilling: All of a Sudden, the Democratic Party thinks Protests are BAD

Health Debate Produces Angry Protests, Angry Retorts

The Earth-scorching August firefight over health care has given rise to questions about the point at which stifling civil discussion damages the democratic process.
The Democratic Party supports free speech and free assembly, but only when such activities are in support of the Party. Dissenters of course should not be allowed to speak freely or rally against opinions and policies which have been approved by our glorious leaders. Freedom only works when it is completely controlled by a One Party State.
"Organized mobs across the country are intimidating lawmakers, disrupting events, and silencing discussions about the change our country needs," one Obama campaign aide wrote in an e-mail to supporters in Michigan.
Be careful to note the inclusion of phraseology regarding content of the message of the protesters, "change our country needs." The sin, it is implied, is not in organizing mobs, intimidating tyrants, disrupting bullshit staged propaganda clambakes, or silencing one-sided speeches masquerading as "discussions," the sin is that these activities are aimed at the not-to-be-questioned "change our country needs."

But really? "Disrupting events" is now a major crime to these people?

Because, gee whiz, Democrat supporters have never, ever, ever, ever protested, or rallied, or shouted down lawmakers, or disrupted an assemblage supporting some agenda with which they disagreed, or attempted to silence discussion in any forum (well, except right here, right now on that last one). Right? I mean, I couldn't perform an internet search right now and find a single example of that ever happening, correct?

I'm not even going to get into the irony embedded in the phrase "organized mob." Hint, though, remember that mobs are by definition "disorderly." But it's the sort of colorful, somewhat sarcastic turn of phrase I might use at my most smart-assed, so I'll give them a pass.

In typical leftist fashion, though, the Democratic Party plays the victimization card for the umpteenth time here, whining about "intimidation," while at the very same time, calling their supporters to arms to show up at meetings, and to turn in information about dissenters to the White House thought-police. It's altogether amusing that the Democratic Party has attempted to portray these "mobs" as puppets of special interests and corporations, ignoring their grassroots formation, thus the in this context insulting "organized" modifier, while at the same attempting to organize their own mobs to counter these allegedly (although unproven to be) "organized" mobs.

The hypocrisy astounds.

If the Democratic Party was at all interested in legitimate discussion and brainstorming about reforming health care, why don't they invite people who oppose the plan onto the podium as well, and make it an honest debate? Hmmmmm? Why are they in such a hurry to push through the plan as currently composed while decrying any analysis of any of the specifics or details (such as the "diversity" clauses, the funding for illegal immigrant health care, etc.)?

Now, let it be known, I really have no problem with politicians of any ilk calling supporters together to promote agendas. I mean, great, involve the voters actively in the political process. Bring it to the people, and let the people respond. Get those who care strongly about an issue out of their chairs and onto the floor. But why whine about some other guy's body order when you yourself forgot to shower?

It just kind of sort of makes you look incredibly fucking stupid.
"What's legitimate dissent is something that provides for constructive dialogue in advancing the discussion on health insurance reform," [Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee] said.
Hey, motherfucker, who the motherfuck are you to tell the public what is and is not legitimate dissent? Who the motherfuck are you, you arrogant shitbrained ass, to define "legitimate" as only that which advances your agenda? FUCK YOU. Guess what? Maybe some people are not at all interested in advancing the discussion on your view of change. Guess what? Maybe some people don't trust you enough to believe you would even remotely take "constructive dialogue" into consideration. I don't think you will, honestly.

Has the Democratic Party offered anything remotely resembling "constructive dialogue" on health care?

And in case you're wondering, yes, non-constructive dialogue is as protected a liberty as constructive dialogue. And The Man don't get to pick which is which.

It's like all of a sudden, Democrats grew a flippin' conscience about how to respectfully treat lawmakers. You mean, in the new Obama-led nationalist socialist world order, I'm not allowed to draw little Hilter mustaches on Obama, or burn him in effigy, or portray his sasquatch of a wife as a demented vampiric whore, they way say liberals have done to Bush and Palin?

Maybe a quote from some ivory tower elitist bullshitter professor will help me put it all in perspective:

But the nature of the protests suggest the GOP has run out of options for fighting on substance, said David S. Meyer, a sociology professor at the University of California-Irvine who wrote The Politics of Protest: Social Movements in America.

"In historical context, it's a tool of the weak," Meyer said. He said it is noteworthy "that conservatives have to throw this kind of Hail Mary pass to stop health care reform" in a political system that favors that status quo.

Oh, thank the mystic beaver spirits of the River Hoobastank for the infallible unbiased enlightenment of higher educators. Weakness, in this context, Mr. PhD in dumbfuckery, is measured by who is in power, not by "substance." Does this mean that during the civil rights era, blacks were not "fighting on substance" when their only option was non-violent protest?


And let's just ignore the fact that rather than addressing the criticisms of the Democratic health care "reform" plans, all the attacks dogs are going after the dissenters with insults. Get it? They're going after the DISSENTERS, not the DISSENT - not the content.

I mean, I'm fine with that. I'll insult the FUCK out of you if you disagree with me. But when I do, I don't run around with a diploma in no-one-gives-a-fuck pretending I'm not doing anything other than insulting. In fact, that's why I make my insults so heavy-handed and outright mean-spirited - dipshits - so that there is absolutely no illusion when I do insult; it's instantly recognized as the low-side - the humorous, emotional, more entertaining aspect of my discussion. I don't dress it up in pseudo-intellectual, University of California leftist window-dressing. I make it fun and colorful. I mean, calling someone "weak" is pretty fucking "weak." Grow a fucking state-funded pair and come up with some real manly jabs. And get a real football team at your university before using a lame, cliche football metaphor.

People are angry and are expressing their dissatisfaction with the Democrat plan for "change." They are protesting what they see as tyranny, just like millions of liberals have done for decades.

..."irony is abundant" in the role-reversal for the community-organizer in chief. "It's going to be interesting to see how the community organizer president is going to respond to communities organized by his political opponents."

That's right, motherfucker. Ha!

And like before:

If possible, please forward the URL for this blog entry to the totalitarian thought police at, who want to know "[i]f you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy." I want to make sure I'm on all the right dissenter lists.

Bad Idea: Financial Times editor says most news websites will charge within a year

Here's a stupid idea:
In a speech in London, Financial Times Editor Lionel Barber said that within the next 12 months, news agencies will be charging access to their websites. The only matter that will be discussed, according to the editor, is whether they should charge per month or per article or possibly even both. "I confidently predict that within the next 12 months, almost all news organisations will be charging for content."

I already ignore news sites that currently charge. Heck, I often ignore sites that force you to register and log-in to read, even if it's free. Big media is trying to control information - but it's only going to drive people to more blogs (which are by nature, more one-sided and editorial in nature - regardless of the political slant). The model news agencies employ for television should work on the internet. Allow free access and sell advertising space. And you know what, any major news agency that doesn't charge when others start to will see a huge increase in traffic, and thus a huge increase in revenues.

This is what the political machines want. They want information limited, so that they can control public knowledge and dissent. Television and newspaper hope that by reigning in the internet, they'll drive people back to their dying media (paper, broadcast, cable...).

Less scrupulous interneters are just going to cut-and-paste relevant sections of stories into blogs and forums anyway.

"News" as a commodity is increasingly becoming a thing of the past - especially unbiased even-handed, straight-facts reporting. The supply online is limitless. But the demand for perspective and consolidated forums will be there, and that's what they need to focus on - getting hits so that people see those little money producing ads.

All this will do is put the final nail in the coffin of big news media.

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Health Care "Insurance Reform"

Good news on the Big Brother front, Chairman MAObama wants you to turn in your neighbor if he doesn't agree with the socialization of health care:

According to the White House "blog":

For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them.

Keeping our current plans, for the record, morons, is hardly the only complaint about this massive turd of a plan. Nor is the president "consistently" saying something to counter complaints about what the bill itself actually says.

This bill will burden the tax-payer with massively inefficient governmental bureaucracy and costs. Change is not necessarily "reform." We need to move in the right direction to reduce the costs of medical care - reducing federal regulations which drive up health care and insurance costs, and tort reform to reduce frivolous lawsuits, which run in the billions. Reduce taxes, so that individuals and families can afford to make their own health care choices, rather than have their wallets raided to pay for unnecessary programs, bureaucratic middle-men and government waste.

Sure, perhaps you will be able to keep your current insurance/provider for awhile, but in the long run, this government program will bankrupt them and all private health providers, and eventually over time there will be nothing left but government-run health care.

Don't be fooled. This is a blatant seizing of power by the Feds, an attempt to further control every aspect of your private lives and your pocketbooks. And this from the supposedly "pro-choice" side of the aisle. Ha!

If possible, please forward the URL for this blog entry to the totalitarian thought police at, who want to know "[i]f you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy." I want to make sure I'm on all the right dissenter lists.