Tuesday, October 28, 2008

North to Alaska, Comrades!

In case ya hadn't heard, Sarah Palin is the Governor of the most socialist, spread-the-wealth state in the Union!

Every damn individual in Alaska gets thousands of dollars handed over to them every year - totally tax-free and without any condition except citizenship - as a government stipend from oil revenues. This year, Governor Palin increased the refund by $1200 per person! And she claims that Alaskans somehow actually own the land of their own state, not the oil companies and other corporations - silly girl! - so that the people of Alaska "share in the wealth" when their resources are plundered. What a Commie!

That, my friends, is a socialist welfare state if ever I heard of one. It's the biggest dole in the nation. Nothin' but a handout to keep the proles happy. I'm surprised they don't have free satellite TV - with every ESPN channel! - for every citizen.

No wonder she likes being so close to Russia. Probably misses the good old days. Spends hours staring out her million-dollar windows at the Promised Land, sighing, wishing for a man like Joseph Stalin again.

Thanks to JedL at Daily Kos for jumpstarting this brainfart for me.
Now playing: Roger Miller - The Promised Land
via FoxyTunes


krid said...

Now if only someone can produce a single example of Obama saying something... anything pro-American or pro-capitalist, we'll no longer have to endure our involuntary spasms of spontaneous laughter when he claims to be "bipartisan." Hahahaha!

Seriously, maybe they'll play the Internationale at the McCain/Palin victory party Tuesday night, and liberals can sing along (the rest of us'll need the bouncing-ball-on-the-lyrics thing to participate).

gomonkeygo said...

Wow. You live in a very isolated bubble-world, krid. You've NEVER heard Obama say ANYTHING pro-American? Then you've never heard a single one of his speeches. That is the subtext and text of his speeches. Obama not a capitalist? Then he wouldn't have voted to bail out Wall Street. Personally, I wish he hadn't.

And don't count on that victory party, man. Unless you wanna meet in Grant Park.

krid said...

Are you kidding me? The bailout is a commie's dream, dude. You know all about ownership of the "commanding heights" and all that discredited pablum from Marx, Lenin, Hitler, etc. Talk about reactionary!

Fact is, Obama's been marinating in leftist/anti-American extremism from the moment he came out of his poor, confused hippie mom's tummy. From Alinsky to Rev. Wright to Ayers/Dohrn and now Rashid Khalidi. His speeches make Robert Redford's character in The Candidate look like Thomas Jefferson. Obama is a complete fabrication. Goebbels would be proud.

gomonkeygo said...

As a trained historian who has often used the lens of Marxism to look at social and political history, I have to disagree. I see very little in his political life that says Obama endorses socialism. Perhaps the bailout can be looked at as socialism, but seeing as it was proposed by a Republican administration, I don't think you really want to go there. Obama is no more a socialist in his political life than was FDR or Eisenhower or Thomas Jefferson (who also wrote about "spreading the wealth" and taxing the rich but not the poor for the betterment of all!). Thanks for the Jefferson cue, by the way.

Some of your inferences are tangential at best, hysterical at worst, especially those based on personal. Blaming his Mom? That's seriously messed up thinking. Here's a logic train from my own life to illustrate the speciousness of this kind of thinking: The pastor of my Lutheran church was gay - I attended that church for 20 years - I must be gay! But I ain't. We can do this to Palin, too. Look at her former church. They hunt witches, ya know there! And they claim Palin is an "annointed" member of a secret world wide inner council of witch hunters and that it is with their blessing and support that Palin dedicated Alaska to Christ!

I will say that Palin is the ultimate America hater in this race. She's married to a card-carrying member of an anti-American separatist political organization whose primary aim is secession from the Union, whose founder died a suspicious death while illegally purchasing explosives. There's a homegrown terrorist living in Sarah Palin's house, if you ask me. And don't forget the AIP's endorsement of her gubernatorial campaign and her videotaped blessing of their convention. She's up to her plucked eyebrows in radicals and extremists and anti-Americans.

From a personal political viewpoint, I'm a far-left liberal and Obama is so far to the center compared to me that he's walking the kiddie pool of the Right. I would love to see him come towards the left for a little while, but I don't think it's gonna happen.

I gotta go. It was windy last night and my Obama sign needs straightening. Have a good one, krid. Looking forward to your response :)

krid said...

News flash... it wasn't the wind :)

The bailout was proposed by a Republican administration (with a Democrat Treasury Secretary) in order to fix a Democrat created mess. If said Republican administration had 10% of Obama's agitprop savvy (and unblinking support from the media), the CRA, Rep. Frank, Sen. Dodd, Raines, Mae, Mac... all would be common household knowledge and Obama would lose by 30% instead of 2%.

A couple Jefferson quotes, just to refresh your "trained historian's Marxist lens":

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
–Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
–Thomas Jefferson

Re: Palin... you draw a tertiary connection between Palin and a secessionist party in Alaska and equate it to a direct, ongoing 20-year connection to an admitted, high-profile domestic terrorist. Alrighty then. But parenthetically, given your admiration for Jefferson, I'd be interested to hear your explanation of why secessionism is inherently un-/anti-American.

The Palin/witch stuff is just kooky.

Oh, and logically speaking, you might be interested to learn that you gay pastor parallel only holds water if I am suggesting that Barack Obama is black... but maybe the wind also got your high school diploma :)

gomonkeygo said...

Ya know, krid, I was thinking after my reply that part of the problem here is that we disagree on the merits of socialism. Personally, I have no problems with it. But I guess you do. The US is the only industrialized nation that jumps like a frightened little girl when the word is mentioned, because our corporate controllers and their monocled overseers have conditioned us to see socialism as evil. That's a definition I heartily disagree with. Socialism may not be perfect, but neither is capitalism or the free market; recent economic events demonstrate this perfectly.

I hear basic American political truisms in Obama's campaign speeches, nothing radically new or different, though sometimes more eloquently expressed than before. Everything he's saying has been said before, by Presidents and others. The spin put on it by McCain/Palin is nothing new either, though many of the under-30 generation probably haven't heard this type of demagoguery and red-baiting in their lifetime. Most of them, according to polls, don't even understand what McCain is saying.

I think you hear something different in his speeches. And we could probably argue to the end of time about what we each hear. I'd prefer not to but I'm interested in your response.

krid said...

OK, I'll bite.

I have 6,000,000 problems with German socialism, 30,000,000 with Soviet socialism, somewhere between 500,000 and 3,000,000 problems with Maoist/Chinese socialism, and 1,750,000 problems with Cambodian Khmer Rouge socialism. Is that enough for ya?

I don't know how anyone can look at the 20th century and prefer socialism over whatever we're calling what we have here in the U.S. ("Americanism"?). I really can't understand how you can state so, without shame or even fear of embarassment, in a public forum such as this. The two are diametrically opposed by any reasoned philosophical analysis.

I guess it's a forest for the trees kinda thing, and you guys can't even see the trees for the leaves!


gomonkeygo said...

Other than leaving with a couple of Jefferson quotes of my own, I'd like to know how this economic meltdown is the Democrat's fault?

If it weren't for McCain's Big Brain Phil Gramm (and his lobbyist friends who wrote it) slamming through a nasty deregulation bill that allowed all this subprime insanity, we wouldn't be in this mess. And for six of the last eight years, the Republicans have controlled the Congress while for the last two years Bush has controlled the Democratic Congress with his whack-a-mole Veto hammer.


"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the
whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus
applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.

If this isn't spreading the wealth, nothing is.

krid said...

Here is a youtube vid that outlines the case against the Dems in causing the present financial crisis... But think about it this way: if there were a Republican that could be blamed, wouldn't we now be in week 8 or 9 of the media/congressional inquisition to put his/her head on a stick?

Good Jefferson quotes, but income taxes and any taxes levied directly on individuals were considered unconstituional in the U.S. until 1913 (when the Constitution was amended to explicitly allow them). Up until then, and in Jefferson's time, all federal revenue was from tariffs and excises (indirect taxes)--similar to taxing consumption.

Jefferson would spin in his grave about today's tax system. Hell--even Woodrow Wilson would: the first federal income tax passed during his presidency affected only the top 1% of incomes. The tax rate? Also 1%!

gomonkeygo said...

Obama is the number one liberal in the Senate, if you believe the National Journal, which will supposedly non-partisan bases its ratings on purely subjective opinions of its editors and reporters regarding ideology.

The Congressional Quarterly rankings, on the other hand, use statistical measures. They put Obama maybe 9 or 10th most "liberal" if "liberal" translates as voting party line. But they also note that he is pretty much in the middle of the pack on many issues, having (unfortunately, I think) voted more than 40% of the time to support Bush measures.

The rankings are easily distorted too, even the more fact-based CQ ones. There's a good piece (IMO) here on the different scoring techniques:


Of course, one also has to believe that liberal is a bad word. I don't. It's a lot like that liberty word, I think, and goes better with that and freedom than conservative does in my mind. Here's where our definitions differ greatly again, eh?

I do agree that McCain is not a traditional conservative in some regards, though his voting record doesn't stray very far from core Republican strategies of the last eight years at all.

Romney would've been a stronger choice for the Republicans if it weren't for his "scary" religion thing. And his face. That's a Halloween mask in the making! It's so Botox-dead... In fact, I think a Romney/McCain ticket would be neck and neck with Obama right now. But McCain would never have gone for the back seat.

I think in the end, if they want to save themselves, the Republicans should save face, not contest the election, act like honorable opponents, beat Rove to death in a carpark and hide his body with Hoffa's, and try to figure out how they can change back into an effective political party again before they fracture like the Dems before the Civil War.

Anonymous said...

Geez! I can't believe the "mania" surrounding Obama. A man who has only served 2 years in Congress and most of the time vote "present" instead of for or against the issues. I guess that's what's meant by being in the middle. Everybody calling for change and Obama as their saviour...hmm...maybe we should ask the Germans if they got the "change" they wanted/expected with Hitler ot the Cubans if the got the "change" they wanted/expected when Fidel Castro came to power. The past 8 years have been anything but real Republican values. Bush is NOT a Republican...he's really a facist working for all his rich corporate buddies! If you don't believe it then checkout Musolini's comments on Corporations and facisim. America used to be a great country until the liberals (of all parties) watered down the fabric that made this country great: God & freedom! I can say I didn't want or vote for EITHER candidate this time as BOTH were contrary to my ideas and beliefs! Let's see in 4 years if you still think Obama is the greatest.

gomonkeygo said...

Okay - see ya in four years! We'll see if you feel any differently then, too, okay?

BTW, Obama didn't vote "present" in the US Congress if that's what you're saying. He did though usewith this oft-used tactical vote in the Illinois legislature. As do most of his colleagues. They use all kinds of bull to explain it, but it's supposedly used to express an opinion and say that you were there but that you can't agree or disagree enough to vote yeah or nay. It's really just a tactic all parties use to advance their particular positions. I agree that it's stupid, but that's the Illinois State legislature for you.