I just made another report to Attackwatch.com:

Here’s an unfair attack on Obama’s jobs plan. It lists all these tax rates which conflicted with his assertion that the rich pay less than the poor in taxes, obviously a Conservative trick.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

I just reported noisydove.com to attackwatch.com

If I were a Liberal (Progressives, not necessarily a Democrat), I’d be feeling seriously ripped off. I thought it saw the dawn of our foretold new age. Instead I got a little bit of cash to sprinkle on crippled state governments that lasted all of about 9 months, and a big bloated piss-poor excuse for a healthcare reform bill.

Conservatives like to complain about the Obama administration, and vilify the big scary Hippy President, and act like he’s done grave damage. But the reality is, things couldn’t have gone much better for Conservatives under a hard-Left President with a super majority. Strategy wise, policy wise, legislatively, Obama’s term has been an unmitigated armature-hour disaster. Obama had the whole cake, we were going to have it all to ourselves, but somehow, on the way in it got dropped face-down out in the parking.

They passed the Goody bill (aka Stimulus) first thing – sort of the self-congratulatory appetizer for the new world of Hope and Change. But after that, momentum stopped. That bill is now a 200-pound albatross around the collective Progressive/Keynesian neck. It’s a big, “See, toldja. Government spending don’t do jack-diddly for a floundering economy.”

After that, for reasons difficult to understand, Pelosi burned down congress with the Cap and Trade bill. Why? Who gave her the keys??? Sure, she was elected to head up the House, but why did Obama let her have his car. Who didn’t think she would immediately squeal out of the driveway and start running people down at random?

Then they finally get to our beloved and sacred health care reform. Now seriously – if I were a Progressive, the whole healthcare debate and legislative process would have me feeling physically ill. I know a lot of Leftists try to blame the Republicans for something… But those Leftists aren’t real Leftists. Anyone paying attention knows what happened, and the Republicans didn’t have a spark of power to do a damn thing about it. That first whole year was spent sloppily ‘negotiating’ one massive bill with Democrats. All the while, Republicans were left out in the cold, able to sit back in their minority and leisurely take pot-shots, picking us off here and there, priming for the shellacking of 2010.

Even after that there weren’t enough Dems to pass the pathetic thing, not that it mattered, because it had been stripped down and ruined numerous purchased votes ago. In my Progressive mind, I hear from my fellow Progressives, “This is a starting point.” Bull shit! If anyone were in charge of this circus, anyone with even a vague idea of what’s going on, we would have passed a “Starting point” bill first thing, gently, the way Obama promised. Instead, we wasted all of Obama’s political capital passing a “starting point” bill that isn’t a good starting point. We’ll be lucky in our lifetime to see enough Progressive political capital to take step two.

It’s like I’ve been saying. If Obama or any of his crew had any experience leading a diverse organization, or negotiate with humans, they would have thrown an arm around the Republicans and gave them whatever they wanted in order to get them on board with healthcare reform. Only, include stuff everyone likes! Only, include stuff that will visibly help people immediately. A year later there would have been, if nothing else, plenty of political capital for a Health Care Reform: Step 2. And in that year, the Dems could have carefully negotiated it among themselves.

Instead, they chose the smash-and-grab technique. They had political capital – so they spent it, loudly and proudly. Get it while the getn’s good. Bamboozle. Shock and awe. And what they ended up with was a sickly bill, scaled back by paranoid Democrats worried about their next election, labeled Obamacare, the distraction that busied Washington while our economy sunk.

As a Progressive, I’d be upset.

I’d like to make a quick comment on NPR’s coverage of the AZ shooting, and specifically today’s segment on On The Media about the validity of questioning angry political rhetoric.

I’ll have to say, first, that the coverage has been irresponsible at best. Don’t get me wrong. I listen to NPR continuously, and until recently have considered its work some of the best. The coverage of the oil spill was top-notch!

The problem with the recent coverage of the AZ shooting, besides letting off unconfirmed information, was how your people were so blatantly on the “Liberal” side of the Conservative political rhetoric blame-wave. Compare this coverage to the Fort Hill shooting coverage. You guys were first-class on that one: slow to blame and later thorough and even.

I finally had to write today after listening to On The Media. The premise was sound: It’s valid to question angry rhetoric after a violent incident even if there is no evidence linking that event to the rhetoric. But – again – the whole focus was on Conservative media personalities. This leaves me with the conclusion that NPR isn’t concerned about the rhetoric going in the other direction. I seem to remember some fairly serious vitriol against Bush. And Sarah Palin – regardless of the crazy things she says – I think the vitriol against her, before she had a chance to say anything, was unprecedented.

So, in summary, I can’t defend you guys anymore. In the past I’ve argued that you weren’t Liberal, or that if you were you weren’t bias. Elitist? Sure, but not bias. I can’t honestly say that anymore. Not after this, and not after that crazy lady fired Juan Williams. I mean, seriously, Juan was great!

I’m afraid you guys just got put in the same drawer as MSNBC… Just kidding. But seriously, it’s out, you’re a Liberal organization.

Question, by Squab Dove: Is it me or do most people only know the word “compromise” as if compromise is the best option? Compromise by its definition means both parties get less than what they wanted. Why don’t people seek out a collaborative agreement, a win-win? Do we not understand what that means? Are we too greedy to care?

The trouble is competing ideology. Either side has a totally different approach to constructing the solution for certain problems.

But yes, indeed, we are talking about negotiation when we talk about compromise. Obama seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what negotiation means. Think of the whole opening dialogue with Iran campaign point. He doesn’t seem to grasp that negotiation is and adjustment of wills according to leverage. And the goal is to have both sides leave happy. He seems to think negotiation is charming someone into doing something that they otherwise wouldn’t have without your enlightening charm.

The two sides should come together and discuss each others priorities – and make trade, like two kids trading lunch items. The more leverage you have, the more you can demand. That’s negotiation. That’s how business deals work.

Taking Obama’s legislation as an example. He made one of the biggest mistakes you can make in a negotiation, and gave the Republicans one of the biggest forms of leverage: Ability to withdraw. At first he though he had ALL the leverage, so they went after the Pelosi Special. But this scared off many conservative Dems, let everyone know the Obama administration was being belligerent, and didn’t include any Republican priorities, giving the Republicans that one big stick: Ability to withdraw and form a bipartisan opposition.

There was nothing keeping the Reps in the negotiation – actually – they were kicked right out. Remember? The closed door?

Obama claims ending the filibuster will increase compromise. That’s illogical. Ending the filibuster will only shift more leverage to the majority side. It won’t increase compromise in any way. It will only make one side able to demand more – or kick the other side out all together. This would be in the Democrat’s overall interest, because they’re “Progressives” and have a long list of big changes.

That was the fundamental failure of this presidency. He can try blaming others, but what really happened was he thought he could dictate change and ruined his position, in all of two months. Good work Pelosi. Obama could have pulled the other side in and ONLY passed solutions both sides agreed upon, and strengthened his position – validated his Obama mystique.

Think about that. Think about if he had immediately passed a short and easily implementable healthcare reform bill that first fall. A bill both sides had a stake in and showed some pleasant results that year. He would have earned credibility, and significantly increased his leverage for Phase 2. And Phase 3 might happen in year 6 of the Obama administration and look like a public option.

And yes, there would have been butt-hurt Reps over there holding out on anything. But he could have grabbed half or a third with an honest healthcare reform bill, or at least kept all his Democrats. Had Obama lead his legislative efforts more thoughtfully, the Republicans wouldn’t have had a choice but to support a small attractive bill. They wouldn’t have had the Ability to Withdraw.

Instead he now has the record of passing, or attempting to pass, three bills, all with purely partisan support, and all with bipartisan opposition:

1. Spent $800 billion that didn’t seem to do one good-damn thing.
2. Half passed a cap’n trade bill that scared – and is scaring – the shit out of business during a recession.
3. Passed a health care bill against the will of the people and through the use of parliamentary tricks.

Bad economy or not, the reason Obama’s support has dwindled is this: He didn’t do enough for the Left, and the moderates feel like they got scammed.

It starts back a few days ago when Bill O’Reilly was on The View, a show where women talk inanely about issues. [no, I'm not saying every woman in the world is on this show] The group was thoughtfully discussing why Obama is having so much trouble with the American people.

O’Reilly was making the point that there exists between Obama and the average Americal a huge proverbial chasm separating how they see the world. His example of this disconnect was the mosque controversy in NY. Obama approached the issue as though it were one of freedom of religion – while 70% of Americans see plainly that building a mosque so close to the 9-11 sight is inappropriate because [and here it comes] Muslims killed us on 9-11. This statement caused Whoopy Goldberg and Joy Behar to walk off the set (then walk right back on).

I’ve said before I don’t have a problem with “The Ground Zero Mosque”. And personally, I don’t like how Bill described his idea. I don’t think it actually offended any Muslims, but saying that sort of thing gives bitchy Liberals more little sticks to swing and unfairly further the crazy-O’Reilly-narrative with their Teabagger generalizing double-standard. He could have used better words, and the words he used distracted all the stupid people – the ones who need to listen – from the very true point he was making.

The fact is: Muslims did kill us on 9-11. There was a network of guys who pulled off an attack on our country and killed over 3000 people, and those killers did this based on ideas and motivations found in their sect of Islam. Also, one of the biggest threats to peace in the world right now is radical Islam. People know this. This is what people think. Bill said it too simply. He assumes American’s have good sense and don’t need crayons. He’s right. What other society would have had zero backlash against Muslims after 9-11?

The average American starkly sees why constructing a Mosque so close to the site of mass-murder by Muslims is offensive. These Americans aren’t interested in limiting the freedom of anyone’s religion, or keeping Liberal support for a political agenda. They just see this as common sense, best to avoid, find another spot, respect the victims’ suffering. The President has a different way of looking at the issue – apparently. That’s the point Bill was making before he stepped in it.

So since then Bill has been hashing over this whole big to-do, complaining about political correctness running a muck, how it’s wearing on the American people’s constitution for politeness. He is right. It is difficult to have this much needed conversation because everyone is expected to pretend that they don’t have any less-than-enlightened inclinations about Muslims – it’s just those other guys we have to reeducate.

So a couple days ago Bill is having a Factor debate, which includes a contributor representing either side. Juan Williams is representing the that-was-a-stupid-thing-to-say-Bill side, and someone else was representing the Muslim-problem side. Besides working as a contributor on Fox News, Juan did the same thing for NPR, until 36 hours after this debate. Here it is:http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/4381309/factor-debate-over-danger-from-muslim-world/?playlist_id=86923

Now, Juan is a really likable guy. He’s friendly and honest. He’s one of those guys who you can never count on which side of the issue he’ll fall – but you can count on whatever he says, it will be sincere and thought provoking. He’s not toeing anyone’s line, in other words, and makes great points and always adds to the conversation. He’s my favorite kind of contributor. He makes me think and question my ideas.

Right off Juan concedes that Bill is right about one thing: Political correctness is run-a-muck. He also added that this is a bad thing because an over-adherence to political correctness makes needed conversation impossible because it forces people to ignore reality. He then went on to describe an example of the problem, that he himself feels uneasy when he sees people dressed in Muslim garb boarding his plane. He wasn’t advocating such feelings, he was making a factual statement, highlighting a problem he himself is part of, and went on to argue against Bill’s use of words, because they could further this problem.

So 36 hours later, after receiving pressure from CAIR (a Muslim civil rights group), NPR abruptly cans Juan over the phone, an employee of 10 years. The fool president of NPR, Vivian Schiller, claimed the reason for the firing was that Juan, as an NPR contributor/corespondent, isn’t supposed express opinion.

And this is where the fun begins. I swear, it’s like NPR forgot my birthday, just remembered, and felt guilty and got me something REALLY good.

1. Juan wasn’t expressing opinion. He was stating a fact, a helpful fact in countering Bill’s MuslimsKilledUs argument, and a necessary fact in the Muslim-American discussion.

2. There are numerous other correspondents and contributors for NPR on record making all kinds of offensive opinions at all kinds of venues. None have been fired.

3. Juan was holding up the pro-Muslim side of the Factor debate. So it’s obvious that those ninnies on NPR and the jerks at CAIR ignored the context of the statement, or didn’t even bother to read the whole transcript, and imprudently fired a very respected journalist in order to further petty political ends. They’ve been looking for a reason to cut this Fox guy out. Juan Williams, a black man on FOX, a FOX/NPR contributor, harms the Faux News narrative they try to spin.

Vivian Schiller then goes on TV and says that Juan’s opinions should be shared with his psychiatrist and publicist, not as an NPR contributor. Juan was also the ONLY black person on NPR – lol.

Now EVERYONE is pissed – across the spectrum. ALL the ladies on the View think NPR made a mistake, those morning idiots on MSNBC say NPR should hire him back, Bob Beckel [liberal political annalist] is forgoing his yearly donation to NPR in honor of Juan Williams, and the Fox people are PISSED their buddy Juan got screwed and are having a hard time keeping it professional [I love Megan Kelly]. The only non-anti-NPR report I read was a Times piece trying to present the controversy as a FOX-opinion-journalism vs NPR-fact-journalism debate… please… The Times and I stand in line together for food stamps…

Now it’s apparent that NPR REALLY stepped in the warm sticky shit. People are advertising their funding sources. A movement has started efforts to remove NPR’s Federal funding. It’s fund raising week – lol. And this whole thing has proven that NPR is a Liberal organization and has totally undermined their credibility.

Now I understand many don’t feel NPR is unfairly Liberal. That was my sentiment as well. I was kidding myself of course, just like you, but I can’t stay convinced any longer, not with this idiot Schiller at the helm, not with George Soros giving them 1.8 million dollars, not with this blatant double-standard, not with this obviously politically motivated knee-jerk vilification of a good man. And seriously – this was just a plain stupid move. It’s blown any credibility I personally had in the organization’s editorial choices – the opposite of the stated intention.

There’s more to come I’m sure. Schiller is going to get canned I bet. She may have ruined NPR. They might have to stoop to capitalism, or worse yet, STOP PLAYING PRAIRIE FUCKING HOME FUCKING COMPANION, or tone down their minimum three shows a day focus on something about homosexuals.

Happy Birthday to me.
NPR’s up a tree.
ACORN their funding dear congress.
He he he he he he.        

Hey Noisy Dove,
Quack! Just kidding. But seriously though, speaking of quacks, I’ve now head Obama referred to as a fascist, a liberal, a commie, and socialist. These aren’t synonyms, right? So which is he?

Right, they’re not synonyms. But no man is described by one word alone. We’ve had these names thrown around quite a bit lately, mostly toward Obama and his side of the isle. Some people agree on the description while others disagree – and most of this confusion is due to semantics.

Socialism
So lets start with the most frequently used and most semantically abused adjective: socialist. Socialism has earned it’s self a wide definition over the past century. Karl Marx imagined that Socialism would replace Capitalism, as Capitalism replaced Feudalism. And his idea of Socialism was a path to pure Communism – where the workers would take over the means of production and form a “workers’ democracy.”

Of course, Marx didn’t calculate properly for human motivation. He focused too much on the workers’ suffering – their toil for minimal pay under the profiting entrepreneur. He envisioned a world where all workers were guaranteed minimal bounty, and ended the entrepreneur.

As it turned out, prime examples being the USSR, Cuba, and Early Communist China, the minimal bounty, to each according to his need, from each according to his ability, results in a goalless and unfulfilling life. Killing the entrepreneur killed the creator of wealth in order to establish a system of distribution of that wealth.

Today the National Socialist Party, and numerous other organizations, advocates a similar idea, but they have the whole world in mind. They envision a single world “workers’ democracy” with no national borders. This is one end of the Socialist spectrum.

On the other end we have the political parties of certain European countries. I don’t feel honest in granting these Socialists ideological credibility. I’ve become more and more convinced their brand of socialism is little more than populous pandering run-a-muck, shameless vote-buying – elect me and you’ll get this for –free-.

These Socialist political parties advocate for workers rights, including things like vacation time and bonuses. They push for more and bigger entitlements, more government control over business, create numerous lumbering bureaucracies, and to finance these cash-hungry ideas they tax to the limit – and beyond -business and anyone willing to create all this wealth the politicians are promising everyone. They don’t out-right kill the entrepreneur – they attempt to yolk it in order to pull the rest of us. This is the type of Socialist Obama is.

Obama talks about “spreading the wealth” and how people can make too much money – these are Socialist ideas. They come from the idea that capitalism isn’t fair, and it’s government’s job to tax those creating wealth in order to give wealth to those who aren’t.

Communism
Communism is the most inflammatory of the four terms, mostly because we’ve fought a few wars against them, some cold some hot. But if you want to be a jerk, Communism can be used to describe any group working together as a single entity. So hippy-farms and monasteries would count.

Of course, Communism in political and economic terms today describes a military dictatorship, or a government originating from a military dictatorship usually resulting from a successful populous revolution. This describes Cuba, China, and the Soviet Union.

However, if we follow the original intention of Marx, and the self-proclaimed Communist states throughout the past century, Communism is a never-achieved idea. According to the Communist Manifesto, the state must first be overtaken and the people conformed – with force if necessary. (And in all cases bloody awful force was – apparently – necessary) Then, after society has conformed to the Communist ideals, the state would naturally fall away – unneeded.

In actual effect, Communist revolutions, and their necessary force, have resulted in military dictatorships, always under an iconic ruler who is paranoid and ruthless – he had to be. If anything isn’t working out, a factory, a battle – it’s due to neglect of the Communist ideals.

Obama doesn’t fit in here. But men implementing philosophies very similar to Obama’s have enabled these destructive attempts at national Communism.

Fascist
Next we have Fascist. I think this one confuses people the most – I know it does me. This might have a lot to do with the Nazi movement in 1930s-40s Germany, which was a Fascist movement.

Many people see Fascism as the far-right of the political spectrum. This isn’t sensible though. Fascism totally rejects individualism. It’s a political and economic philosophy that can combine philosophies from either side of the political spectrum, as long as the society is organized and highly controlled as one unit – all people serving a single national identity and philosophy – no matter what that philosophy is.

In actual practice, in fact, Fascism ends up being “big government,” the thing right-wingers are always trying to hinder. And in practice, Socialism is Fascism in how it pursues Communism. The only thing really right-wing about Fascism is in how Fascists are willing and highly motivated to defend their nation.

Nazi Germany is a great example of this. People call the Nazis right-wingers, but in form and function the Nazi society ran like an efficient version of the Communist Soviets. Instead of workers revolting against factory owners, the Nazis attacked the Jews and their neighboring countries – stripping them of their wealth to fulfill their ideals.

People were calling Bush a Fascist. This was mostly due to going to war and passing legislation that encroached upon civil liberties. But if that qualified Bush as a Fascist, then Obama also is, since he’s embraced Bush’s expansion of Executive power and the idea of greater government control and national unity.

Liberal
I saved Liberal for last because it’s the easiest and least interesting term. Yes. Obama is definitely a Liberal. And I’m ignoring the numerous uses of the lower-case liberal here. I’m talking about the political term, the one interchangeable with Progressive. A general definition would be this: People should be free but government needs to own that freedom to keep it safe.

You’re free to make money, but government must own that money so they can inspect you, insure your mistakes, and distribute wealth to people who aren’t making enough money to be free according to social standards.

There are some morbid attitudes toward Israel. Should we support them? Of course yes! Why? Because they’re our ally!!!!

If you’re not concerned with loyalty or alliance, and are only concerned with American interests, you still want to support Israel because they are a strategic hold in a highly unstable and economically critical geographic area.

And even if you’re such a Liberal hippy your brain can’t quantify the necessity of sound world economic and military strategy – you still have to recognize that the entity at war with Israel, the movement that wants to see them destroyed, also wants the US and all free nations destroyed.

But Hippies like Helen Thomas, due to their illogical style of thought, back the Palestinians and call Israel an oppressor. They choose to see things only from the side of disenfranchised Palestinians, seeing only Israel’s rough treatment and not what makes Israel feel that treatment is necessary.

They use circular reasoning in blaming Israel – and the US for that matter – for any problems that arise. Missiles are fired into Israeli towns from Palestine – Liberals blame Israel for earning it, call them an occupier. Israel moves into areas to take out missile batteries – Liberals call it state terrorism. Seven Israeli commandos kill 50 Palestinian militants – Liberals call it a disproportionate use of force – because no Israelis were killed in exchange…

If Liberals and other ‘friends-of-Israel’ who criticize Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians really wanted to help the Palestinian people, they’d chastise Hamas and the other wack-job militants directly creating all these problems. They’d talk the average Palestinian out of the irrational idea of driving the chosen people into the Mediterranean and teach them some lessons from past Liberal super-stars like Gandi and Dr. King. If an oppressed people strikes out at the majority, kills and destroys, they’ll never see freedom. But if they line up and take a turn letting the majority hit them with sticks, and not retaliating like vindictive children, they’ll find themselves making salt at the beach in no time.

WL (whiny Liberal)

WL: What’s more important, enforcing immigration laws or laws against rape, murder, hard drugs, and spousal and child abuse? The AZ law is the type of misguided thinking that causes immigrants to fear the police. Victims don’t report instances of rape and abuse, and others are afraid or unwilling to offer valuable information to police about serious crime. There are better ways to enforce immigration [strawman alert].

AZ: Indeed, people who are openly breaking the law are often hesitant to report crimes by others or crimes perpetrated upon themselves. But the fact that a problem exists is not a reason to neglect a solution to the problem that is causing it. Many of those serious and violent crimes are committed by Mexicans (often gang related) freely and illegally passing through our borders. The amount of crime is simply exceeding the man power we have available, and the lack of Federal assistance is making such measure necessary to protect our citizens and visitors, regardless of race.

WL: There’s no way to prevent racial profiling. Police already pull minorities over with probable cause for other crimes disproportionately. This law makes it easier for police to profile brown people as illegal immigrants, a problem Latinos are already dealing with. This law would force citizen Latinos and foreign visa holders to keep their papers on them at all times! Nazi fascist state.

AZ: Correct. Racial profiling is one of those things you really can’t prevent because it occurs in the mind of the officer and can’t be proven. But, at least this law tries to prevent it, specifically, unlike the other laws you’re talking about. And, other than prevention of racial profiling, this law has nothing to do with race or skin color. Currently a suspect’s citizenship status can only be confirmed if they are suspected in another crime. The purpose of this law is to allow our police to enforce immigration laws without having to play the game of waiting for more serious crimes to occur.

WL: Immigration laws are in the Federal domain, and so should be enforced Federally.

AZ: Yeah, well, why don’t you try bordering a civil war with violence spilling over, running your police ragged while Washington proclaims your border fence a failure. Maybe this will light a fire under there enlightened think-they-know-better-from-1500-miles-away hopie changie asses! We need troops damn it! Things are getting Detroit around here.

WL: Police are a bunch of uneducated power-happy white guys who hate minorities and violate their rights every chance they get. I know because a cop pulled me over once and I’ve got minority friends. This just makes their bigotry not only legal but institutional.

AZ: Oh no. You got us. We confess. Our officers just love making people miserable, especially the self-hating blacks and Latinos on the force. And while we’re confessing, we should also admit that the reason we keep it so hot here is to keep out blacks and the reason we grow spines on our cactus is to poke the Jews. We’re still trying to figure out how to keep out the Arabs. We’re thinking about a law that requires police to suspect a driver doesn’t have a license if their driving is extremely poor. Ooohhh, I’m so angry I almost like it – Ooooo those non-members of my primitive group. Hmmmmmm, my ignorance makes me want to hit people with a 2×4 when I feel they threaten my click. *fart*

Liberal contradictions:

Less police more gun control! If there’s someone owning a gun we’d prefer it to be owned illegally.

Replace fossil fuel with green energy – oh – but don’t put it in that desert where it might affect the desert ecosystem, and don’t put up wind turbines off the coast because it ruins the natural view. lol I’m being serious. CA’s wind farm has been held up for like 7 years because they don’t want transmission lines build in a desert. If you can’t put up a solar plant in a desert where the HELL else are you going to put it? LOL On Al Gore’s big meat-filled tummy? I mean, there are only so many rich people’s roof tops we can put solar panels on, for the love of Darwin and his profit Dawkins, science be upon them.

You’re a racist because you don’t believe black people need special rules since – you know – they’re black people and aren’t very smart, but it’s not their fault they aren’t smart!

Republicans caused the financial crisis because they believe in limited regulation. Republicans are evil racists, they don’t want poor people and minorities to own homes so they were fighting to reform Fannie and Freddie prior to the financial crisis when they were warning of impending catastrophe and we were calling them fear mongers.

We need to end the Too Big To Fail mentality, and convince the electorate we have a solution to prevent more stomach-twisting bank-bailouts. So let’s not bother reforming Fannie and Freddie, or the credit rating agencies, or the Federal Reserve, or bankruptcy law – and instead create a whole new regulatory bureaucracy in order to institute non-taxpayer financed bank bailouts. (meaning only people who utilize banks will finance the Too Big To Fail mentality and fund the next bailout)

Hey, we need to improve schools, so let’s make it impossible to fire teachers. In more precise words, instead of finding more money in the horribly inefficient bureaucracy of the public school to pay great teachers with, instead let’s compromise on quality and accountability by offering job security in place of higher salary! We’ll be like: “Listen, if you’re truly talented you can make better money doing something else. But if you accept our cheap offer you simply don’t have to worry about getting fired. Seriously. I mean, you’ll have to rape several kids or something and we’ll still keep you on the pay role until you’re convicted. Come to work drunk!”

Hey, I don’t want Bush listening in on my overseas phone calls possibly! Oh, but handsome Obama, you canhave my medical history for sure.

Keep your laws off my body! Oh – unless it’s a law about what kind of health insurance I am mandated to purchase.

Republicans are heartless. Let’s abandon Iraq.

No one strike Iran’s nuclear sites – ok. We’ll just contain them once they have their nukes. But just to try getting them to shut down their sites, let’s get rid of some nukes and not modernize as a gesture of non-hypocrisy. Oh, and no weaponizing space.

WE NEED TO PASS THE 800 BILLION STIMULUS BILL TO SAVE THE ECONOMY!!! OK, now we need to pass an economy crippling energy tax bill and otherwise threaten anyone pondering success in the future.

Banks! You dirty dogs! You’re going to get it for making all those irresponsible loans. We’re going to get you!! Oh, we’re gona get you. You’ll learn your lesson – you’ll see – we’ll learn you proper! Now, go start making small business loans in a bad economy.

We need to reduce carbon release! People release carbon by burning fossil fuels to produce inexpensive energy. We have zero emission energy sources but they’re expensive so people can not afford them. It’s getting cheaper though. Especially over the past five or six years, innovation and investment have improved the technology and lowered its cost. We need people to adopt zero emission sources fast though, so let’s tax carbon to the point that it forces people to use zero emission sources, but have exceptions for our friends. Of course, this will stifle natural investment and innovation by making it all more expensive to develop and manufacture zero emission sources in the US, and otherwise produce wealth in the US. But zero emission energy markets will be stimulated by people desperate to lower their energy bills so it might work out.

Cap and Trade won’t chase jobs over seas. For one, we have started calling it a “jobs bill.” And two, there are already plenty of reasons for manufacturing companies, or any energy or labor intensive industry, to avoid setting up in the US. Cap and Trade will be just one more.

A progressive tax rate is fair.

We need to pass this “stimulus” bill that will hastily dump money into numerous projects, becausespending is stimulus. We also need to be careful how much money we are spending on military because we’re in difficult economic times.

I spent an extra $10,000 for a hybrid to get 35 mpg rather than the normal 30 mpg in a normal economy car. Cars are responsible for 25% of the carbon released, but with clever rounding, my hybrid might save 1% of my 25%. And I eat meat which counts for 18%.

I’ll think of more later.