Tag Archives: DNC

Much to My Annoyance

Much to My Annoyance

I have a friend who sends me articles every once in a while.  A few weeks ago he sent me one from New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.  Krugman, if you don’t know is a Nobel Prize winner. A fact which used to be a huge accomplishment, today doesn’t mean that much.

I’m too lazy to explain why, so I’ll insert this picture:

See what I mean?  I know, it’s sad isn’t it? It is like a Nobel Prize has become the elitist equivalent of a participation metal. “Yeah, for us!!  Everyone gets a trophy.”  Anyway, back to Krugman. Even though I read it a couple of weeks ago, it took this long to fully annoy me.  Keep in mind I’m STILL amazed at how stupid the American people are for re-electing a President who’s done nothing but make the economy worse.  But, the people have spoken.  If the economies of Greece and California are lookin’ OH SO FINE to you, and if Santa Claus is your idea of a President who am I to complain?  But, oh yes, I will complain.

Krugman began spewing his editorial vomit by pointing out that in the 1950’s American survived a 91% income tax rate.  So apparently it’s time to bring back the good ol’ days.  Of course, I’m not surprised by this. The last election confirmed the majority of Americans believe higher taxes somehow create prosperity.  They just ignore the plethora (a word I learned from watching the “Three Amigos” as a kid) of historical evidence and common sense that suggest otherwise.

But that’s not the part that annoyed me.  Here is the paragraph that did:

“There are, let’s face it, some people in our political life who pine for the days when minorities and women knew their place, gays stayed firmly in the closet and congressmen asked, “Are you now or have you ever been?” The rest of us, however, are very glad those days are gone. We are, morally, a much better nation than we were. Oh, and the food has improved a lot, too.”

So, Mr. Krugman (if that’s your real name) just so I’m clear, “some” in our “political life” pine for a more oppressive society based on race, gender, and sexual orientation?  My question is WHO?  Give us a name of one politician who is calling for the oppression of women, minorities and gays.  Enlighten us with the name or number of any Republican bill, in any Committee that calls for these things.  With someone as super smart as Krugman to say “let’s face it,” these people have to be front and center in our “political life,” right?  Or am I missing something?

Remind me, didn’t the recent RNC have more women and minorities giving speeches than the DNC?  OHMIGOSH, it did.  But anyone as super smart as Krugman would be able to see right through that, it’s obviously smoke and mirrors.  Clearly, there is an underlining tone of sexism, racism and homophobia that is the ONLY reason that ANYONE could POSSIBLY be conservative.  Right?

Then there’s the, “We are, morally, a much better nation than we were” thing.

What the hell is he talking about?

Whenever a jackass like Krugman talks about morality, your walls of defense should really shoot up.  Morality isn’t food, where everyone’s opinion is valid.  As long as it tastes good to you, that’s all that matters.  To understand morality you have to have an understanding about standards.  What is right and what is wrong.

Killing someone because they have a nicer car is wrong.  Period.  The state can’t legitimately make laws that say otherwise.  Regardless of societal whims.  Our nation was founded on the idea that all men (including women) are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.”  I hate to break it to you, but rights and morality are linked, all morality originates with God, not government.

If the government is what decides morality, than morality, just like everything else is economical.  How moral is it that more Americans live in poverty than ever before?  If morality is all about the living conditions of women and minorities, how are we more moral now with 72% of black children being born into families without a father?  Doesn’t that all but guarantee a continual cycle of poverty?  Of course we couldn’t POSSIBLY suggest the God-given morality of being married if you’re going to start cranking out babies.  Or, at a bare-ass minimum, suggest that fathers MAN UP and take care of their kids.  No, no, no. It’s more moral to give free contraception.

Well, at least they will all continue to vote Democrat.

I’ll agree with Krugman on one thing.   The food has improved over the past several decades.


LIFEZILLA:  Having more fun then two monkeys in a poo throwing contest.



…And Then There’s The Truth

…And Then There’s The Truth

I want to start by saying that I WASN’T going to write about the President’s speech, I wasn’t going to write about the DNC at all.  But now I’m kinda glad I am.  First, you should know I watched more of the DNC than I did the RNC.  They used smaller words, so it was easier for me to understand.  And it was a relief that, in the times I was watching, no one mentioned the 16 trillion dollar debt once.  And, now that I think about it, I didn’t hear anyone mention the 42 months of over 8% unemployment, or the record 46 million Americans on food stamps.  Judging by the “Four more years” chant, the Democrats obviously feel we are better off with this President.  Wait a minute.  Maybe they were chanting about how much longer President Clinton’s speech would go.  Speaking of Clinton’s speech, it was obviously the best of the convention, I noticed it was laced with a LOT of history re-writing.

The only thing I intended to write about Obama’s speech I put as my Facebook status.

I know!!  Look at that face.  I was adorable, wasn’t I?

I was going to let it stand at that, but then…Well, I guess it doesn’t matter.

First off, President Obama’s speech was well delivered.  The man can talk.  That being said, it was full of crap.

In his speech Obama said, “I’ll use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work, rebuilding roads and bridges, schools and runways. After two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some nation-building right here at home.”

Wait a minute.  That money is borrowed money.  Borrowed.  Can someone explain to me how you can “save” money that doesn’t exist?   It sounds to me as if he plans on continuing spending money we don’t have.  Or am I missing something?

Let me give a hypothetical.  Let’s say you are married to someone who loves to purchase things like…oh…I dunno, let’s say platters/dishes.  Let’s say she has 41 sets.  Not the holiday sets she stores out in the garage, but 41 sets in the house. You tell her she has to stop spending money on dishware.  She agrees, and is excited to “save money.”  You look at the balance sheet at the end of the month and you are still over spending.  You ask her if she is still spending on dishware.  She says, “No.  The money I’m saving by not buying dishware, I’m spending on shoes.”

That truly is not a personal example.  And that is EXACTLY what the Democrats are proposing.

Quick side note: As you know, I’m no mathematician.  I sucked at math in high school and have gotten progressively worse.  So if someone could verify this for me I would appreciate it.  As best as I can figure, Obama has been President for 1.6% of the time since we declared our independence. Yet he has incurred 33.6% of our total debt.

Is that right?

Obama also claims to cut the debt by $4 trillion dollars.  Really?  According to  The Daily Caller, “…the committee Republican staffers (suggest) the $4 trillion deficit reduction claim relies on three accounting gimmicks, namely applying $2.1 trillion saving in the Budget Control Act, claiming $843 billion in saving from war spending that was not going to be spent in the first place, and $394 billion based on the assumption that there will be a  Medicare reimbursement “doc fix.”

“When properly counted, $4 trillion in new alleged deficit reduction becomes less than $400 billion. There is no policy change to alter our disastrously unsustainable path.”

Obama then went on to talk about manufacturing.  He claims, “We can help big factories and small businesses double their exports, and if we choose this path, we can create a million new manufacturing jobs in the next four years.”

But the truth is manufacturing has lost over half a million jobs with him as President. And exactly what is his plan for doing that?

“And now you have a choice: We can give more tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, or we can start rewarding companies that open new plants and train new workers and create new jobs here in the United States of America.”  We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  The world.  That alone is making business flee overseas.  Maybe that is what the President intends to export.

The NY Daily News says, “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s proposal is actually aimed at encouraging investment in the U.S., not overseas.  The U.S. currently has a global tax system that is filled with credits, exemptions and deductions that enable many companies to avoid U.S. taxes and provides an incentive for corporations to keep their profits in other countries. Whether Romney’s plan would spur investment in the U.S. is debatable, but it’s not a plan aimed at dispersing profits abroad.”

I could go on.  But really I need to stop.  I’m repressing my anger in the hope that one day I will be able to fuse the old bar of soap to the new bar of soap with nothing but blind rage.  If you have time the following are great articles on the subject.



LIFEZILLA:  I could write timely articles like the other guys.  Of course I could tattoo beautiful pictures of unicorns on my buttocks, but I’m not going to do that either.




 Ohhold on.  I, yeahIgot, whoa, waitasec ond, okay yeahIgot it.  I got it.  You push on it to make the words separate.  It’s a bar that puts a space between the words.

Whew!!!!  I’m glad I could figure that out.

I was a little worried.  You see, I have been watching the Democratic National Convention (DNC) whenever I have been able to, and it seems to me whenever a Republican is generalized it is either as a rich, corporate owning, gun toting, selfish fatty, or a toothless stupid-dumb that doesn’t have two brain cells to rub together.

It was either one or the other and…well…I ain’t no rich man.

(Do you see what I just did there?  I used a double negative!!!  What an idiot!!)

This attached video really made me laugh.  It reminded me of a quote from James D. Best who said, “Conservatives think progressives have bad ideas, while progressives believe conservatives are bad people.”

Kudos to “The Daily Show.”



Now before you get all, “Duh Danny.  Stop being so melodramatic.”  I am not melodramatic! I’m just exaggeratedly emotional about most situations in an overly sensational sort of way.

I was planning on writing about Presidents Clinton, and Obama’s speeches, but I’m not going to, yet.

They were good, but neither were entirely true.

I might write my take on it later.

OH…Before I go.  These pictures made me laugh as well.  I just thought I would share.


LIFEZILLA: Beauty may only be skin deep, but it is nice to have if you’re poor and stupid.