Archive for General
And You Thought Michael Voris (the Vortex) was Scary?
Posted by: | CommentsWell, if Flashy thought a Catholic dictatorship was spooky (and it absolutely is) just consider Glenn Beck and his crowd of religious extremists that descended upon Washington, D.C. the other day…
This is a nightmare on the Potomac, and this is precisely what Sarah Palin and the rest of the Repulsivecans are up to. At the end of the day, they don’t give a rip nor understand what capitalism is, and what it requires. All they care about is instituting their evangelical Christian mythology upon the masses.
Beck and Palin, and so many of the rest of these so-called Tea Partiers, are repulsive throwbacks to exactly that which brought us Obama.
Four thoughts for the day..
Posted by: | Comments1. Islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology.
2. The only good Muslim is one who doesn’t take it seriously.
3. The only good Muslim who takes it seriously is a dead one.
4. The only good foreign policy is one that kills him.
Not sure who originally penned these thoughts, but there they are for consumption by OTBL viewers..
And If The Catholic Mystics Don’t Piss You Off, Try This!
Posted by: | CommentsGround Zero Muslim center may get public financing …
Yup, it’s true.. and according to the article (link) the New York City Comptroller is willing to consider approving the public subsidy!
……………………. Holy. Shit.
And You Thought Obama Was Scary?
Posted by: | CommentsAlso, you have to watch the non-clarifying clarification. I laughed at the outset, but then the viscious theocratic marching orders came at the very end: prosthletize, indoctrinate, and brainwash …. or else.
And THIS guy gets to vote! Now that’s what’s stunning here…
Hudson Mayor Dean Knudson appoints new Library Czar
In a bold move that has baffled many of his one-time supporters, Hudson Mayor Dean Knudson has appointed local communist Roy Sjoberg to the Hudson Joint Library Board. Immediately following his appointment, Mr. Sjoberg declared that he was now the Library Czar and appointed a 23 member Task Farce to determine how much taxes needed to be raised to meet the wishes of the lunatic liberals that reside in Hudson.
For those of you unfamiliar with Playboy Roy Sjoberg, he is very adept at reaching in his neighbors’ pockets to confiscate their wealth. He has advocated for every major tax increase and referendum held in Hudson. He is also the only person to head up not just one, but TWO 23 member task farces.
When not reaching into his neighbors’ pockets for more money, Playboy Roy has been know to reach his hand onto many a young lady around town, if you know what I mean…..
Paul asks the $3 trillion dollar question, again…
Posted by: | CommentsBattery Cost Forecasts and The Origin of Specious
Posted by: | CommentsFound this article on Battery Cost Forecasts to be quite an interesting read. I thought I should make a post of it just so it would catch Flashy’s eye.
The wheels are coming off of this administration’s train – but then, why should they care when they aren’t on rails to begin with!
Ryan’s Roadmap
Posted by: | CommentsIOWA Tea Party Removes Sign..
Posted by: | Comments
One wonders why? This particular sign speaks to a truth that people need to contemplate.. I think it was cowardly and irrational to remove this billboard.
You Can Kiss My McNuggets…
Posted by: | CommentsYTD, the best editorial I have read…
EDITORIAL: Toy story
The pompous fascists at the egregiously misnamed “Center for Science in the Public Interest” resurfaced this week to announce a brand new shakedown of McDonald’s.
Unless the fast-food giant agrees to stop distributing toys with its Happy Meals, the group says it will move forward with a lawsuit charging that the company “unfairly and deceptively” markets its products toward children.
Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center, says McDonald’s marketing is so powerful that “worn down” parents can’t be trusted to properly monitor their own children.
Why that is any business of Mr. Jacobson and his ilk remains a mystery.
h/t to The Objective Standard’s Twitter feed.
Capitalism is not to blame for the oil spill
Posted by: | Comments
I took a moment recently to read Bob Cesca’s Huffington Post article. Cesca is no different than many who are taking the oil spill as an opportunity for context dropping smears of capitalism and capitalists; the economic system and the risk takers within that provide them the very means to spew their socialist claptrap, not to mention create the highest standard of living in the history of mankind. Such pot shots at capitalism are clearly not helping matters.
The degree of myopic, out of context, drivel spewed by Cesca seemed to know no end, as he apparently has little or no knowledge of history (one wonders if he ever heard of the Santa Barbara spill of 1969, and what ensued on the heels of reaction to it). Mr. Cesca would like us all to believe, just as the proponents of government controlled health care, that there IS a free marketand that this free market is the root cause of the current disaster (just plug in one, it doesn’t seem to matter with this crowd). The same lame argument was made regarding the supposed 40 million people without health insurance, that it was the free market supposedly failing by virtue of the fact some people chose not to purchase health insurance, or simply could not afford the premium charges (let alone purchase care out of pocket). Ergo, it must be the free market, capitalism, that is to blame for this “social injustice” simply because in the present state providers of those services and the insurance companies who pay for it make an accounting profit; as if there is something fundamentally wrong with making a living in the provisioning of health care or insurance to pay for it…
In the same convoluted and out-of-context way energy companies are now being held up as poster children for the failure of capitalism.
June 14th, 2005
Posted by: | CommentsA couple weeks will mark the 5th anniversary of the infamous June 14th School Board meeting at Hudson High School where Curt Weese was unceremoniously denied his 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech..
Hudson, Wisconsin, School Board Meeting
June 14, 2005
(Unofficial transcript begins 42 minutes 34 seconds into meeting. Not proofread as of 12:30 p.m. Saturday, June 26, 2005.)
Annette Cook: Next item on our agenda is topics for discussion, Item No. 7, we do not have anything listed there this evening. So we will move onto Item 8, Citizens Request to Speak to the Board on Non-Agenda Items. It is at this time in our meeting that citizens can address the Board on items not listed on our agenda. We would ask these people to come forward again give their name and address for the record and comments this section is limited to 15 minutes total time. The first citizen is Curt Weese.
Curt Weese: My name is Curt Weese, and I live at 613 Cedar Drive North, a letter was written to the Star Observer this past week berating taxpayers for asking for information. The board member who wrote this letter seems to feel that he should be able to determine which information is useful and which is not. Let me remind that board member that this is not his function, nor should it be. Let me also remind this board member that no publicly, that to publicly ridicule those asking for information flies in the face of what the open records law is meant to do. Let me also remind this board member of a few items that were discovered via the open records law. It was discovered through an open records request that we have a huge fund balance which this year should top $17 million. Where was this board member during that time? He was a member of the Finance Committee and made no effort to inform the public of this reserve balance. In addition, he allowed a vote to be taken on a $25 million referendum in 2003 without disclosing this to the public. It was discovered through an open records request that we indeed have no space crunch at the Middle School and will in fact have fewer students there this year than two years ago. Where was this board member during that time. He was allowing Ron Bernth to mislead the public through a mailing and misinformation presented at the October 2002 School Board meeting that stated otherwise. It was discovered through an Open Records request that the Teachers Union refuses to allow the district to bid out health insurance. Where was this board member during that time? He voted to allow the Union to take us to referendum in 2001 for a teachers pay levy override, and he voted again in 2004 to go above and beyond the qualified economic offer.
Annette Cook: Mr. Weese, excuse me, Im sorry for interrupting but youre bringing up a lot of different topics, and your request to speak was on Request for Information so it asks you to,
Curt Weese: Thats what Im talking about
Annette Cook: Rather than going off on all different topics, and if you have a particular
Curt Weese: Do you have a, Am I being limited to my right to speak?
Annette Cook: Mr. Weese, I was not finished speaking.
Curt Weese: Neither was I.
You can review the balance of this tawdry episode of government hacks verses a local citizen HERE.. And after you have read through the transcript please bear in mind that in the back of the auditorium an armed police officer forced Curt Weese, who was doing nothing at the time other than sitting listening to Mark Pribonic and Marion Shaw, to leave the premises… I have a hard time referring the police officer as such, he was a pathetic punk …. can’t even remember the fool’s name!
Hillary Spews Her Sophistry (again)
Posted by: | CommentsSophistry: a plausible (to an ignoramus) but erroneous (seriously, in this case) argument.
Thunder thighs said this recently:
The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues that confront the United States and other nations, whether it is individual, corporate, whatever the taxation forms are.
Then she offered up an example. Brazil has the highest tax-to-G.D.P. rate in the Western hemisphere. And guess what? Its growing like crazy. The rich are getting richer, but they are pulling people out of poverty. There is a certain formula there that used to work for us until we abandoned it to our regret, in my opinion. My view is that you have to get many countries to increase their public revenues.
Someone needs to inform this ignorant nitwit that real economic growth-real wealth creation-is not and cannot be created merely by increasing the level of confiscatory taxation on whomever you deem as “rich.” The only thing that grows under that misguided paradigm is government and those beholding to more and higher degrees of redistribution.
If what Mrs Clinton is actually referring to is more government employment, well then let’s run the table and define the “rich” as anyone who earns more than $99,999, and tax them at 100% of their earnings over this imaginary point of total sufficiency.. Let’s just see what happens, shall we?
In reality, increased levels of confiscatory taxation impel the propensity for government employment, and government entitlements, to grow, and for more and more far reaching control over the lives of individuals and businesses. But such is only a short run effect, in the long run you actually end up not with Brazil, or with sustainable full employment, but rather Greece! That’s the real axiom, madame. That is the actual lesson of history. Ignore it at your (and sadly, our) peril.
As for Brazil.. please. Here are the actual tax rates for Brazil: http://www.worldwide-tax.com/brazil/brazil_taxe…
Something tells me this is not what Mrs Clinton is advocating for here (essentially, Reaganomics). She is merely commenting on the Brazilian effects of essentially implementing laffer-curve taxation, but this is nothing to crow about nor can it be the cause of whatever real wealth creation is taking place in Brazil. The mere fact that their “tax to GDP” is relatively high is a non-sequitur.
Hillary would never admit this, but the fact of the matter is that lowered marginal tax rates (please note that dividend income is not taxed in Brazil) coupled with taxing low income people (which she would never advocate for here in the U.S.), has resulted in significant inflows of earned income to the state. While a greedy statist might see this as virtuous, anyone with an iota of respect for individual rights sees this as an abomination. It was an abomination when Reagan and the Bush’s promoted it, it is an abomination in Brazil as well.
The real question is what would have been the case in Brazil WITHOUT, for example, marginal rate surtaxes on corporations or lowered taxation international investments and investors?
To argue that the tax revenues which have flowed into the statist realm of Brazil are due to confiscatory taxing of the “rich” is simply sophistry. Don’t be suckered into this one..
