*********************************************PAGE ON VIETNAM AND DEMOCRATS .******************************************

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Why are Conservative Candidates, Radio and TV hosts and Journalists so Clueless about the Left's meaning of "Taxing the Rich"

Why are Conservative Candidates, Radio and TV hosts and Journalists so Clueless about the Left's meaning of "Taxing the Rich" and the best and most obvious way to diffuse the Left's use of this expression?
The argument goes:  Leftie says we must increase taxes on the rich to fix the state of the economy.  Conservie says if you raise taxes on the rich it would not produce enough revenue to fix the economy.  But if we lower taxes on all, including the rich, much more revenue would be generated.

There are two things wrong with this type of response by conservatives.  
First, it is difficult for many to understand either side of the argument, so nobody is moved from their original position.
Second, and most important, both sides are using quite different definitions of "the rich".

Early in the 2008 campaign Obama was on TV discussing with journalists and others what everyone thought the income for a rich person should begin with.  He toyed with a number of different figures: $50,000, $100,000, $150,000, $200,000, $250,000,  ....... finally settling on $200,000 for an individual.  What, I believe, happened is that most people didn't take him seriously and just put it out of mind, realizing a rich man must be one certainly exceeding a million dollars in income and probably more.

Well, Obama was more serious than anyone, even today, realizes.  Anyone who has seen the movie 2016 can come away with the realization that Obama hates America as it is because he sees America just as he sees the countries like England who built empires on the colonization and exploitation of poorer countries, and he is determined to transform America from a powerful country into just one of many countries under the United Nations as a supra-government.

America has been known as a rich and powerful country wherein even the poorest citizen is rich compared to a person in a poor country.  It is therefore not a stretch to understand that Obama sees EVERY American as rich.  So, Obama and his Leftist friends see all Americans as rich.  

Therefore when a Leftist says we must raise taxes on the rich, the Leftist is saying every American is assumed rich and must have his/her taxes raised.

So the proper response to a Leftist saying the rich must be taxed is to raise the objection that Obama and the Leftists mean raising taxes on everyone citing Obama himself toying with income figures above $50,000 as meaning a rich person and citing a recent poll by Rasmussen where a majority say an average middle class income is only $50,000.  Above $50,000 means you're rich!

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Before you vote, vet the candidate, then vote

A couple of days ago an actress who was part of a TV show called "Clueless" some years ago showed herself to be anything but clueless in "doing her homework" in researching the views and accomplishments of the Republican candidate for President, Mitt Romney.  Having thus vetted him and finding him to be the candidate she believed would bring the country back from the terrible state of economic chaos at present, to a country of prosperity once again, she tweeted online her intention to vote for Mitt Romney.

Immediately she was hit with countless hate-filled responses containing the most vile depictions of herself as a person, that she might as well just kill herself, and accusing her of being a traitor to her race.

Shocked but not angered, Stacey Dash, a beautiful, intelligent, articulate and knowledgable black woman, responded in a way that illustrated her courage, her sterling character and especially her love of country.  Having voted for Obama in 2008, she was not blind to the fact that he promised a lot but did not deliver on those promises.  She wants something better.

She has trust in Romney to deliver what he promises.  Voting for a candidate just because of similar skin color is not a good thing; a candidate must do what is good for the country.  Stacey holds firmly to  her first amendment right of free speech, to her grasp of the constitution as the guarantor of her rights, and she believes that all Americans, regardless of race, are really a united people.  A patriot.  An American.  A believer in the American dream.  An example for all of us Americans.

Here she is in a TV interview.  I think we'll be seeing a lot more of Stacey.

Friday, October 5, 2012

What They Won't Do to Win

I've heard that Hilda, below, will have the unemployment rate drop from 7.8% to 6.8% days before the election.  I suppose that's because the Obama minions will be hiring all the street people with food stamps for one month and a couple of days until after the election when they lose these jobs right after Obama wins the election!  That's really being creative, what?  Well, that's just what I've heard.

It's interesting that Congress is blamed for not doing what is necessary to create jobs and that there is so little action.  The only inaction I can see in Congress is in the Senate, where the Senate Majority leader keeps blocking most bills passed by the House but blocked by him in the Senate, not even allowing a vote to take place many times.  Seems to me that not the whole congress, but the Senate, must bear the blame of an inactive or uncooperative Congress.