The “Fair Share” Liberals (a key distinction here from other liberals) that wish the most for the days of the 90% marginal income tax rate to return seem to be the clueless and ignorant on how the government “sells” favorable tax rates to encourage and support investment, and even more clueless and ignorant on the impact of globalization. They don’t see math, they only see “fair”.

Take a look at any chart that shows historical income tax rates vs. capital gains tax rates during the 90% years vs. now (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf, for instance).

Two questions:
2) Are the rich really paying 90%?
3) Was the U.S. in a different competitive climate in terms of investment dollars and industry 50 years ago vs now?

“Fair Share” Liberals that long for the tax rates of the 1950′s fail to consider for even a second that the conditions which allowed those rates to exist – specifically the government and industry’s lack of global competition and a much slower velocity of world cashflow at the time – would literally wipe out entire industries overnight if they were reintroduced today.

Their hate of capitalism and their refusal to let simple math interfere with their social agenda prevents these kinds of liberals from seeing exactly where their utopian ideals will send this country, which is exactly where they send virtually every single private enterprise they get their hands on – into the ground.

I say “fine”. Tax us at 90% and transfer all the wealth we make “back” into the Fair Share Liberal’s idiot hands. We’ll have it all back within a year anyways, because as smart as they think they are they can’t resist the salaries = safety and consumerism = bliss bright shiny objects that we put in front of them. Each and every time we do, they hand their money over to us like mindless zombies. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

“Fair Share” Liberals will trade the bulk of their lives away for those shiny objects not just once, but for years, and when they finally wake up and clue in that they’ve wasted 10, 20, 30 years of their lives doing so yet again, they’ll whine and scream and riot in order to try and get at least some part of their life back.

Personally, at this point I hope we’ll have some sort of Galt-like lesson waiting for them that will hit hard enough so that they finally realize that this is what you ultimately get when you choose a life of entitlement and dependency – nothing – and that’s nothing but “fair”.

It’s fair because it’s nature, and it’s fair because it is how nature keeps in balance. Those who adapt survive, and like the great poem goes, when you bargain with life for a penny, a penny is exactly what you get when you choose ignorant bliss and slavery over your own human potential.

Fear not however, “Fair Share” Liberals. We have a federal election coming up and a whole new set of bright shiny objects will be on their way soon.

Well I strongly disagree, and I’m sure Kesler Dufrene’s victims and the families of his victims disagree, too.  When Dufrene’s sentence was over, a judge ordered him deported back to Haiti.  it never happened.  Instead, he went on to kill three people, including a 15-year old girl.

“Wait, we all agree that criminals like this should be deported”, is what comes back from liberals whenever a case like Dufrene’s is cited.  This is b.s., however, because they’ll say that on the one hand, and yet on the other support every single action and policy that allows a monster like Dufrene to do what he did in the first place.

What liberals don’t get is that there’s a difference between how we’d like things to be, and the way that they actually are.  They don’t get that while they’re sitting their pouring over data from liberal studies in some ivory tower somewhere, there’s actually things occurring down on the ground that have a much more urgent timeline that need much more decisive, and even at times draconian actions if lives are going to be saved.

The liberal ways seems to be let all these guys in here, then spend years and years deciding who should stay and who should go.  What they don’t get, however, is the federal government is not accurate or skilled enough to make those kind of decisions with any sort of precision – they’re just too big – and as a result, you get tragedies like the one Dufrene caused tmie and time again.

The conservative approach, rather, is to move these sorts of policy and enforcement decisions to at least the state level, or ideally, some joint level between the state and private enterprise (no, liberals, conservatives don’t want immigration and crime to be handled fully by private enterprise – that’s how much you misunderstand libertarianism).

Liberals see government as “government”.  They make (nor do they care to make) any distinction between municipal, state, and federal governments because to them trying to make those distinctions when it comes to creating and enforcing policy affects their joy of dependency all the same.

This upcoming election could possibly hold one of the biggest power grabs by the federal government in American history.  I’m not asking liberals to prevent it by voting Republican or anything crazy like that, I’m just hoping that they can understand what the conservative argument here actually is in regards to government and policy so that we can look for solutions to immigration and guys like Dufrene through something other than a purely partisan and ideological lens. 

This is as stupid as protesting “Black Monday” because it somehow has African American connotations, or someone trying to get the name of “jerk chicken” changed because they were called both a jerk and a chicken once, and it hurt their feelings.

If someone other than the team itself was trying to name an elderly female sports team “The Cougars”, I could see the argument because I could see the intent, but in this case, it’s just another instance of PC going way too far and a group of overzealous idiots acting like babies.

Thanks to this ruling, drunk, over-tanned, iguana-necked women in bars everywhere trying to get their young stud for the evening can breathe a sigh of comfort knowing that someone out there is fighting for them.

I heard the reason was neither, that it was simply that the state of Nebraska hadn’t submitted an alternate route for the pipeline due to its environmental concerns, and therefore because the pipeline had a start, a finish, but not a middle, the State Department couldn’t give it the OK. This is according to Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer.

Trying to find a clean video of Schweitzer’s interview with Neil Cavuto yesterday where he says this, but so far all I have is Fox’s website: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2012/01/19/whos-blame-keystone-pipeline-delay

And a play-by-play on Crooks and Liars:

http://thirdbranch.vox.crooksandliars.com/karoli/montana-gov-schweitzer-schools-neil-cavuto-

As usual, there’s the Republican’s side, the Democrat’s side, and then there’s the truth. Personally, in spite of the new job delays (which are being disputed as well), I’m actually for this being decided later rather than sooner if the delay happens to be because of legitimate environmental concerns vs a company trying to cut corners (such as with the gauge of steel it’s using for the pipe).

Quality always costs less in the long run – let’s do this, but let’s do it right and make sure economics, environment, and safety all trump politics and elections on this one.

However, one of my big loves is comedy, and time and time again some of my favorite people come through and help to truly put things into perspective. Louis C.K. is one of those people.

Here’s a short clip of his standup routine called “Hilarious”, that I highly recommend for anybody – especially those who pride themselves on being politically correct, those who get violently offended at even the slightest (and ultimately harmless) racial slur, and most of all, those who feel that just because they contribute ZERO, they still deserve EVERYTHING from other people.

It’s a 4 minute clip – enjoy. (Note particularly his comments around the 2 minute mark, regarding people on planes). “Did you partake in the MIRACLE of human flight you NON-CONTRIBUTING ZERO?!”

Occupussies. They make me laugh.

Said one protester (of the two?) “We need to stay focused on our message of shortening the gap between the rich and the poor.”
Ok. Did that “message” include a plan, per chance?
Didn’t think so, so shiver away, losers.

http://news.yahoo.com/several-hundred-occupy-protesters-rally-capitol-233535407.html

For all my friends on both sides of the border, you’ll quickly accept this as a beautiful message and love it for so many reasons. If you hate it, however, then no matter what side of the border you happen to live on you’re probably a liberal or protectionist idiot and in that case I will revel in and laugh at your offended sensitivities because you suck as a person.

I have never hired a smoker (outside of the “bar smoker”) in any of my companies and never will. Bottom line is I’ve always found them to be less productive and more of a pain in the ass than they’re worth.

1) The breaks. Smokers will always downplay or minimize the amount of breaks that they take. When in Canada, I’ll see those losers crowding around at -35C just to get that puff in, and there’s no way it takes the “2 minutes” they claim it does to get bundled up, go outside, huddle in their circle and bitch about life, and then come back in.
2) The costs. Smokers raise the cost of my insurance premiums. Other people have to pay for their loser habit, and that’s wrong.
3) The attitude. Smokers seem to have an excuse for everything, starting with their reasons for smoking. All-in-all they’re miserable people, which makes sense – they want to shorten their own lives and those of the people around them. Look what they do to themselves and their children – they hate life.
4) They stink. They really, really do. Not only do they stink themselves (their clothes, their hands, their paperwork, etc.), but they stink up the workplace with their habit, mainly with that last, drawn-out inhale they take of a cigarette right before they enter my building and then exhale. Ever have to use the phone in a smoker’s office? It’s disgusting, too.

My grandmother quit cold-turkey after 3 packs a day of king-sized cigarettes for 40 years. She smoked so much she had a permanent yellow stain under her nose from it, and permanently yellow fingers, and yet she simply up and quit one day because she wanted to spend as much time on this earth as she could with her grandchildren.

If she could do it, anyone can, so I don’t buy the excuse from people that it’s too hard to quit, either. Perhaps now if they’re not getting jobs, maybe this will smarten them up, but my guess is they’ll likely just come up with a new excuse.

The guy asks Romney to change his stance on saying “Corporations are people” and instead saying, “Corporations are evil people.” He goes on to say that corporations “record record profits which go to the 1%”, or “keep it in retained earnings in which they hoard it for themselves.”

Romney goes on to explain to this guy that 1) it’s not JUST the 1% that benefits from a company profiting, and 2) there’s no better way than corporations of creating jobs and collecting tax revenues.

This is exemplary of the Liberal Idiot’s view of companies, focusing on the “evil” profits and the “evil” hoarding as the problems rather than the symptoms, and not looking at the problem itself, which is a simple one:

This government has made it more attractive to companies to sit on cash than invest it in either plant or people.

And why is it more attractive? One word: uncertainty. Yes, a significant part of that is market uncertainty but companies deal with that all the time. The bigger factor is legislative uncertainty. A market self-balances, government doesn’t. A market acts more/less rationally, whereas a government doesn’t, which is why it creates uncertainty of the worst kind.

Romney then brings up an example of a company that has to move (or start) 20,000 jobs elsewhere because of government interference. Only an Occupy Idiot would think this to be LESS of a problem than why corporations are sitting on dollars, and only an Occupy idiot would write profit-taking or hoarding off as simply “corporate greed”.

And what’s an Idiot Occupier’s solution, anyway – to FORCE companies to spend money?

I’m not a Romney supporter, per se. I’m also very pro-American and support it in any way I can. I say this to put in context the criticism I’m about to levy because in light of these comments against Romney, I think America could use a little “dull”.

By that, I mean America should not try to go for the extremes all the time. For instance, I’m not a fan of ObamaCare in the least, and believe it was a squandered opportunity to do something right in the healthcare area for once. Nevertheless, I am far from believing it will throw America over the cliff of socialism once fully put in place.

I’m a big believer in gun rights. Personally, I don’t like guns but I believe wholeheartedly in my right to own one and use one to defend myself or those I care about. However, Americanism dictates that I should have the “right” to brandish a fully-automatic M16 with an extended clip in public. Having a handgun in my glove compartment or beside my bed should some crackhead decide my place is the one he’s going to wrongly decide to burglarize one day is one thing – being able to dump 60 rounds into him in 5 seconds is another.

I support gay rights, however I do not think that allowing two gay men or women to get married is going to turn the entire country into a homosexual cesspool.

One of the things I love about America turns out to be one of the things which I think takes it so far over the edge sometimes to the point of lunacy, and that is its almost need to take everything to the extreme.

Again, I’m not saying this as a Romney supporter but if “dull” happens to mean a balanced, rational approach to the social, national security, and economic threats that we’re facing, then perhaps dull is what I want and exactly what I need.

After all, it seems to be working pretty well for Canada.