Wednesday, August 12, 2009
So, let me get this straight here...
And I quote...
"UPS and FedEX are doin' just fine...uh...right...the uh...no, they are, i mean, it's it's the, uh, post office that's always having problems."
So, just to clarify, private industry is doing fine, and the government run institution is having problems. That's very correct, Mr. President. Imagine that. Just like social security, medicare, medicaid, fannie, and freddie.
But don't worry folks, these clowns want to be in charge of your healthcare as well. Somehow, it will all work out okay. We just have to trust in the statist.
Cut me a break.
-The Rocker-
Friday, July 24, 2009
A recommendation for the First Teleprompter
Cue the teleprompter…
“My fellow Americans, let me begin tonight by stating something clearly, irrevocably, and with absolute certainty. I am an idiot. It is not my intention that my idiocy be linked to my health care, tax, energy, or economic policies. The manifestation of my idiocy was quite brilliantly illustrated in my comments in regards to the Cambridge police and the events involving Henry Louis Gates. There are many reasons for me to admit my stupidity in this matter and I would like to take this opportunity to clearly discuss each point so that we may move beyond this matter.
To begin with, it was an immeasurably irresponsible and borderline reckless decision to offer my opinion, as President of the United States on national television, on a matter in which I did not know all the facts. In exacerbation of my ignorance to the matter, the information I was privy to was biased and only discussed a single side of the circumstances involved in the matter. As president it should be expected of me to only offer my opinion on matters in which I actually have a full understanding. If I feel it is necessary to qualify a statement by saying, ‘I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don’t know all the facts,’ then I need to learn to keep my fool mouth shut. I acknowledge my oversight on this behavior of basic common sense. In my defense, the comment on the Gates’ incident was made at the end of a press conference in which I spoke extensively about legislation that I have not actually read. I now fully acknowledge and have learned that it is idiotic to speak on matters in which I do not know the facts.
Next was the dim-witted decision to utter the phrase “acted stupidly.” As a master politician and a brilliant orator, I should have known that saying, “acted stupidly” in regards to anything was a mistake. As a grown man and leader of the free world, I should have remembered that calling someone or something stupid is on par with the intelligence displayed in any disagreement had on any of the playgrounds in America. The appropriate and post-adolescent comment would have simply been that I disapproved of something or someone. As I previously stated, I should have kept my mouth shut on this matter, but if I just could not contain sharing my opinion I should have just said I disapproved with the actions of the police. Once again, in my defense, I have been spending the last year calling George W Bush stupid. Calling something stupid has become a natural reaction for me when I disagree with it.
Last, but not least, I was an idiot for casting a shadow upon the brave men and women in law enforcement. I now understand the idiocy of declaring that law enforcement across the nation is discriminatory against African Americans and Hispanics. I have never spent a single day of my life in harms way in attempt to help bring safety and peace to my fellow citizens. I, in fact, place hundreds of men and women in harms way everyday simply by my existence as president. Given this complete absence of any basic understanding of the circumstances involved in the day to day task of keeping a community safe, it was unwise to pass judgment upon the entire scope of law enforcement in reaction to my buddy Skip getting arrested. I did not comprehend the additional pressure and the increased stress that my gaffe would place upon law enforcement. It is my hope that these brave men and women will continue to keep me, my family, and each American safe no matter how much I choose to besmirch their character and malign their integrity. I now understand the idiocy of calling into question the integrity and authority of those that volunteer to put themselves at risk to protect others. In my defense, Reverend Wright did always teach us that white people were constantly oppressing African Americans by abusing their power.
In conclusion, I am an idiot. I spoke with the forethought of a drunken frat boy enraged by the detention of his friend. It is my hope that this instance will not have a lasting effect to the detriment on the growing racial peace and tolerance in America. It is my hope that my comments will be drowned out by the steady flow of speeches and press conferences that I will continue to give as long as I continue to find unexplainable joy in the sound of my own voice. Please do not take this comment as an omission of guilt or in any way interpret and apologetic tone. It is like I stated to begin my address, I only wish to saliently and candidly pronounce and explain a simple concept. I am an idiot.
Good night and God Bless America.”
- The Banker
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Just a bunch of junk
Government is a lot like junk food. Junk food is technically food and an option when you are hungry. The problem is that when you are hungry it is usually a bad idea to satiate that hunger with potato chips and candy. As adults we understand that junk food does not satiate our needs and will typically lead us to having an upset stomach. Worse than replacing a meal with junk food is making junk food a part of your diet. As poorly a substitute as junk food is in the short term, the long term effects of having junk food as a part of a person’s diet are far more damaging. Instead of supporting life, which is the basic purpose of food, junk food actually will damage life.
Now that is not to say that junk food is always bad. Junk food has a designed purpose and it serves that purpose well. Junk food is there for a snack. It is there for people to enjoy occasionally and with moderation. Ice cream is good for desert. A candy bar is a good snack when you have sweet tooth. Some potato chips are a good addition to a well made sandwich.
There is a perfectly good purpose for junk food and junk food is amazing when used for that intended purpose. It is when we stray from that intended purpose that we begin to harm ourselves. The important thing is that we understand that it is our responsibility as junk food eaters to eat it right. It is not the junk food’s fault if we lack the will power to resist the temptation of a tasty treat, and if we find ourselves obese from too much junk food then we must accept the difficulties of regaining our health.
Government is just like junk food. Government has a purpose, and it suits that purpose very well. We even have instructions as to what is the purpose of government. We as a people find ourselves at fault when we begin to overindulge in government. Much like junk food is always tasty, the idea of passing off our responsibilities and problems to a faceless institution seems to be quite provocative. But much as junk food fails to satiate our hunger, government will fail to adequately address our responsibilities and problems. If as a nation we begin to use government in ways outside its purpose then we will find ourselves quite unhealthy as a people.
- The Banker
Now that is not to say that junk food is always bad. Junk food has a designed purpose and it serves that purpose well. Junk food is there for a snack. It is there for people to enjoy occasionally and with moderation. Ice cream is good for desert. A candy bar is a good snack when you have sweet tooth. Some potato chips are a good addition to a well made sandwich.
There is a perfectly good purpose for junk food and junk food is amazing when used for that intended purpose. It is when we stray from that intended purpose that we begin to harm ourselves. The important thing is that we understand that it is our responsibility as junk food eaters to eat it right. It is not the junk food’s fault if we lack the will power to resist the temptation of a tasty treat, and if we find ourselves obese from too much junk food then we must accept the difficulties of regaining our health.
Government is just like junk food. Government has a purpose, and it suits that purpose very well. We even have instructions as to what is the purpose of government. We as a people find ourselves at fault when we begin to overindulge in government. Much like junk food is always tasty, the idea of passing off our responsibilities and problems to a faceless institution seems to be quite provocative. But much as junk food fails to satiate our hunger, government will fail to adequately address our responsibilities and problems. If as a nation we begin to use government in ways outside its purpose then we will find ourselves quite unhealthy as a people.
- The Banker
Saturday, May 9, 2009
The Stress Tests Have Me Stressed
I couldn't be more irritated by the "stress tests".
I want to make sure I have this right. The federal government (all knowing) is going to assign a group of people to "project possible future economic stress" and determine if our banks are capitalized enough to deal with these imaginary conditions. Oh, and by the way, the government is retroactively going to apply these arbitrary outcomes to imaginary situations to how they will allow banks to repay the loans that the previous administration gave out.
This is the equivalent of getting a loan from a bank and then having the bank decide a year later that they are going to imagine what it would be like if you got fired from your job, then tell you that you need to have more money in your savings account in order to make more than your minimum payment to them.
If something like that were to happen to an individual from a bank it would be wrong and a clear indicator of corporate greed.
Well, while corporate greed is for money, government greed is for power. The stress tests are little more than a power grab by Geithner and Barry. To be fair, the banks were stupid for taking the TARP money in the first place. The money may have been offered by the Bush administration with benevolent intentions, but banks needed to have the foresight to see the socialist sharks circling the water. The gem of the industrial might of America is the auto industry and Barry controls two-thirds of that (thank God for Ford). Barry controls the gem of the insurance industry in AIG. With the stress tests, Barry is looking to take control of the gems of the financial industry, consumer banks. The hooks are fairly well in Citibank. The next big target is Bank of America.
Bank of America is the largest holder of home loans and credit cards. It is also the second largest holder of American deposit dollars and banks two-thirds of American households in some form or fashion. Now, it doesn't take a whiz kid to see how the stress test is a convenient way to take control of a whale like Bank of America. All you have to do is project the economy to worsen to a point that is so bad that the bank with the most exposure in home loans and credit cards would invariable come up short of capital. It does not matter if the bank is currently properly capitalized. You project the economy to get worse to a point that the bank needs to raise so much capital that you will do all but force them to have the government convert their preferred shares into common equity shares. Once you do that, you have control of arguably the most powerful bank in the world, and you definitely have control of the US economy.
If you are at all interested in social engineering (spreading the wealth) all you have to do now is take control of energy, education, and the media....
-The Banker
Monday, May 4, 2009
Excellent Tea Party Video and Message.
The following is a video of the Dallas Tax Day tea party I found on the web. Not only is the video good, but the video message is phenomenal. Please enjoy.
-The Rocker-
-The Rocker-
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
RE: Arlen Specter's New "Affiliation" Should Come as No Real Surprise
A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
Arlen Specter becoming a democrat on paper does little, if anything, in regards to the balance of power on the Hill. Much like Joseph Lieberman becoming an Independent did little to change the balance of power when he made the switch. Specter will vote the same as he always has, especially on major issues where a Senator is responsible more to his constituents than his party. If there is an effect it will be on small issues in which he is whipped into voting with the party.
The real significance of the move is that it means that Democrats are now completely responsible for what happens over the next few years. They will reap the rewards or take the blame. There is nowhere left to hide. Republicans can no longer be blamed for obstructing "progress". Democrats, and liberals by and large, will now live and die by the value of their own ideas.
Republicans should be excited about this idea. The last time that liberals had this much control was in 1978. It was a miserable failure and gave birth to the Reagan Revolution. With the success of the Tea Parties and Obama's falling approval rating, it is fairly likely that Republicans will gain seats in the House and Senate in 2010, at least until you look at the numbers.
The House is wide open and if the Republicans are to make an serious movement, then it will be in the House. The Senate is not nearly as favorable. There are likely to be 10 Senate seats that will be seriously contested. Only four of those seats belong to Democrats. Two of the seats belong to Harry Reid and Chris Dodd. As unpopular as those two are amongst conservatives, they will probably be re-elected in their home states of Nevada and Connecticut. The third seat is Burris in Illinois, and I don't see Republicans picking up that seat in Obama's backyard. The only seat that Republicans can reasonably pick up is the seat in Colorado, and only if Ryan Frazier stays an "it" guy.
The problem is that the six contested Republican seats could all possibly fall. There are open seats in Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio. Florida and Ohio are toss ups, but both states voted Obama and neither state has a real solid Republican candidate. New Hampshire is very blue and will likely vote in a Democrat, and the Democratic candidate in Missouri has a very well known and respected family name, Robin Carnahan (she is Secretary of State in MO, her dad was governor, her mom was a Senator, and her brother is a Congressman).
Other problem seats for Republicans are in Louisiana and North Carolina. The Republican Senator in Louisiana, David Vitter, will have an uphill fight due to his involvement in a sex scandal. Sen. Richard Burr (R) will have a tough time in North Carolina. North Carolina voted for Obama, ousted Elizabeth Dole (R) in the last election, and voted in a Democrat as governor.
While it may be conventional logic, and the hopes of Republicans, that Americans will tire of Democratic control of Capitol Hill and the White House and vote in Republicans in 2010, the breakdown of the actual races does not match up with the logic, at least in the Senate.
In order for Republicans to not lose even more control of the Senate in 2010, there is going to have to be a dramatic shift to the right by Americans. Democrats are going to have to fail, and that fail is going to have to be epic. So epic that it will cause a real political shift in currently blue states. Democrats are going to have to prove completely inept while in power to cause such a dramatic shift, much like they did in 1978 and 1979.
Oh yeah, Republicans also have to find a charasmatic leader. Luckily, the last time Democrats were in total control, Republicans found that leader.
-The Banker
Arlen Specter becoming a democrat on paper does little, if anything, in regards to the balance of power on the Hill. Much like Joseph Lieberman becoming an Independent did little to change the balance of power when he made the switch. Specter will vote the same as he always has, especially on major issues where a Senator is responsible more to his constituents than his party. If there is an effect it will be on small issues in which he is whipped into voting with the party.
The real significance of the move is that it means that Democrats are now completely responsible for what happens over the next few years. They will reap the rewards or take the blame. There is nowhere left to hide. Republicans can no longer be blamed for obstructing "progress". Democrats, and liberals by and large, will now live and die by the value of their own ideas.
Republicans should be excited about this idea. The last time that liberals had this much control was in 1978. It was a miserable failure and gave birth to the Reagan Revolution. With the success of the Tea Parties and Obama's falling approval rating, it is fairly likely that Republicans will gain seats in the House and Senate in 2010, at least until you look at the numbers.
The House is wide open and if the Republicans are to make an serious movement, then it will be in the House. The Senate is not nearly as favorable. There are likely to be 10 Senate seats that will be seriously contested. Only four of those seats belong to Democrats. Two of the seats belong to Harry Reid and Chris Dodd. As unpopular as those two are amongst conservatives, they will probably be re-elected in their home states of Nevada and Connecticut. The third seat is Burris in Illinois, and I don't see Republicans picking up that seat in Obama's backyard. The only seat that Republicans can reasonably pick up is the seat in Colorado, and only if Ryan Frazier stays an "it" guy.
The problem is that the six contested Republican seats could all possibly fall. There are open seats in Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio. Florida and Ohio are toss ups, but both states voted Obama and neither state has a real solid Republican candidate. New Hampshire is very blue and will likely vote in a Democrat, and the Democratic candidate in Missouri has a very well known and respected family name, Robin Carnahan (she is Secretary of State in MO, her dad was governor, her mom was a Senator, and her brother is a Congressman).
Other problem seats for Republicans are in Louisiana and North Carolina. The Republican Senator in Louisiana, David Vitter, will have an uphill fight due to his involvement in a sex scandal. Sen. Richard Burr (R) will have a tough time in North Carolina. North Carolina voted for Obama, ousted Elizabeth Dole (R) in the last election, and voted in a Democrat as governor.
While it may be conventional logic, and the hopes of Republicans, that Americans will tire of Democratic control of Capitol Hill and the White House and vote in Republicans in 2010, the breakdown of the actual races does not match up with the logic, at least in the Senate.
In order for Republicans to not lose even more control of the Senate in 2010, there is going to have to be a dramatic shift to the right by Americans. Democrats are going to have to fail, and that fail is going to have to be epic. So epic that it will cause a real political shift in currently blue states. Democrats are going to have to prove completely inept while in power to cause such a dramatic shift, much like they did in 1978 and 1979.
Oh yeah, Republicans also have to find a charasmatic leader. Luckily, the last time Democrats were in total control, Republicans found that leader.
-The Banker
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Arlen Specter's New "Affiliation" Should Come as No Real Surprise.
So if you've been paying attention to the news today, you may have noticed that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has switched his affiliation from Republican to Democrat (so I guess now D-PA). This is important because assuming that Al Franken takes the Senate seat in Minnesota (which he most likely will), it gives Democrats at 60 person majority, and makes them filibuster proof.
There are a few ways to look at this sort of thing. The first way is to realize that this won't change Specter's voting record. He probably would have voted with the Democrats anyway, as it has been his common philosophy. I've been angry as Specter for quite some time, as he doesn't typically act like someone from his party. He is a moderate, a Repube-lican, if you will. He is one of these people that leans sharply to the left, yet for some reason or another, claims an affiliation with the Republican party. While Republicans everywhere should be angry at Arlen Specter for this decision, it's important for the party that we realize it's a good idea to oust these sort of people from the party anyway. Specter (along with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins) makes his agenda clear as day. Therefore, it is good for the Republicans as a party that we do away with the "moderates" and replace them instead with people who look more towards our ideals. Arlen Specter is not a Republican. He does not act like a Republican. He does not vote like a Republican. He would probably vote with the Democrats anyway.
That being said, the truth remains that Republicans should not only be angry, but fired up. With this supermajority in Congress we (as Americans) should be scared. The leftists are going to try to push every single piece of liberal legislation that has ever come to light. Therefore, what we look at here is a loss of liberty, a loss of freedom, bigger government control, government owned healthcare, and all of the like. Esssentially, here's what we have going on: a soft tyranny headed by the Obama administration, and a bunch of leftists controlling Congress. It's not a pretty thing. However, given the current state of affairs, there's nothing that can be done about it at this time. Therefore, what the Republican party needs to do is concentrate on having sharp people run for the 2010 Senate and House elections, and we need stronger candidates in the 2012 Presidential election. This year, we ran a bumbling old man (J Mac), and a strong woman who was unfortunately an easy target for the Obama loving lib media (Sarah Palin). While I do like Palin, I think the Republican party needs some strong backbone in there. Mark my words: run her in 2012, and we will lose the election. Keep in mind, I like Sarah Palin...a lot. But the Republican party really needs to get it together.
So yes, Arlen Specter changed sides. Screw him. He's a piece of trash, has been a piece of trash, and will continue to be a piece of trash. He is irrelevant. What Republicans need to do is get their act together. We have to stop being so soft skinned. I know plenty of well educated people out there. It should be easy to defend the things that we stand for (or are supposed to stand for): smaller government, a broader emphasis on personal liberty, national security, and tax issues that do not screw hard working Americans over (ie - a "progressive" tax or those proposed by the liberals - which are not fair, and do not ever work). The Republican party needs to return to the values upon which it should have been embracing the entire time. We've done it to ourselves, and need to return back to it. The Republicans should learn their lesson - they ran like Republicans in 2004, and immediately started acting like Democrats once they got into office. They expanded the government and turned their backs on some of these founding principles.
It is time to take back what should be rightfully ours in 2010. So good riddance, Arlen Specter. We hope you nothing but a loss in 2010. You're a worthless, bumbling, old man. I will raise my middle finger in the air, and laugh at your disgrace. For the rest of you real Americans out there, let's take this chance to sit back, contemplate, and understand what must be done in order to revilatize the party. Let's start running the right candidates, and start embracing the ideals that we should stand for in the first place. Let this be a lesson to us all. Go listen to some Reagan speeches and listen to what a real leader sounds like. Read the Constitution. Embrace liberty. Embrace freedom. Let's bring it back in 2010.We must take the leftists out.
-The Rocker-
There are a few ways to look at this sort of thing. The first way is to realize that this won't change Specter's voting record. He probably would have voted with the Democrats anyway, as it has been his common philosophy. I've been angry as Specter for quite some time, as he doesn't typically act like someone from his party. He is a moderate, a Repube-lican, if you will. He is one of these people that leans sharply to the left, yet for some reason or another, claims an affiliation with the Republican party. While Republicans everywhere should be angry at Arlen Specter for this decision, it's important for the party that we realize it's a good idea to oust these sort of people from the party anyway. Specter (along with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins) makes his agenda clear as day. Therefore, it is good for the Republicans as a party that we do away with the "moderates" and replace them instead with people who look more towards our ideals. Arlen Specter is not a Republican. He does not act like a Republican. He does not vote like a Republican. He would probably vote with the Democrats anyway.
That being said, the truth remains that Republicans should not only be angry, but fired up. With this supermajority in Congress we (as Americans) should be scared. The leftists are going to try to push every single piece of liberal legislation that has ever come to light. Therefore, what we look at here is a loss of liberty, a loss of freedom, bigger government control, government owned healthcare, and all of the like. Esssentially, here's what we have going on: a soft tyranny headed by the Obama administration, and a bunch of leftists controlling Congress. It's not a pretty thing. However, given the current state of affairs, there's nothing that can be done about it at this time. Therefore, what the Republican party needs to do is concentrate on having sharp people run for the 2010 Senate and House elections, and we need stronger candidates in the 2012 Presidential election. This year, we ran a bumbling old man (J Mac), and a strong woman who was unfortunately an easy target for the Obama loving lib media (Sarah Palin). While I do like Palin, I think the Republican party needs some strong backbone in there. Mark my words: run her in 2012, and we will lose the election. Keep in mind, I like Sarah Palin...a lot. But the Republican party really needs to get it together.
So yes, Arlen Specter changed sides. Screw him. He's a piece of trash, has been a piece of trash, and will continue to be a piece of trash. He is irrelevant. What Republicans need to do is get their act together. We have to stop being so soft skinned. I know plenty of well educated people out there. It should be easy to defend the things that we stand for (or are supposed to stand for): smaller government, a broader emphasis on personal liberty, national security, and tax issues that do not screw hard working Americans over (ie - a "progressive" tax or those proposed by the liberals - which are not fair, and do not ever work). The Republican party needs to return to the values upon which it should have been embracing the entire time. We've done it to ourselves, and need to return back to it. The Republicans should learn their lesson - they ran like Republicans in 2004, and immediately started acting like Democrats once they got into office. They expanded the government and turned their backs on some of these founding principles.
It is time to take back what should be rightfully ours in 2010. So good riddance, Arlen Specter. We hope you nothing but a loss in 2010. You're a worthless, bumbling, old man. I will raise my middle finger in the air, and laugh at your disgrace. For the rest of you real Americans out there, let's take this chance to sit back, contemplate, and understand what must be done in order to revilatize the party. Let's start running the right candidates, and start embracing the ideals that we should stand for in the first place. Let this be a lesson to us all. Go listen to some Reagan speeches and listen to what a real leader sounds like. Read the Constitution. Embrace liberty. Embrace freedom. Let's bring it back in 2010.We must take the leftists out.
-The Rocker-
Friday, April 24, 2009
100 Days of Change
How do you like your change America?
A recent Rasmussen Poll indicates that you are split about that question. According to the poll from Rasmussen, Barrack Obama has an approval rating of 55% and a disapproval of 44%. Which is to say that he has polarized the nation.
President Obama deserves all of the credit in the world to President Obama for sticking to his principles. He has clearly been more concerned with his agenda for what he considers a better nation than he has with building political equity in order to remain in office. I don't think that anyone can credibly doubt the leadership or the conviction of the leader of the free world. Barrack Obama is an excellent leader.
The $64,000 question, or trillion dollar question in this case, that is the point of contention is decisive. Where is President Obama leading us? President Obama has been nothing short of the radical liberal that he was accused of being during the presidential campaign. The amazing thing about his time in office so far has been how liberal he has been on a consistent basis. It is this consistency that has caused his first 100 days to be so polarizing.
Each action he has taken will be viewed by those that share his ideology as an great accomplishment. At the same time, those actions will be viewed as attacks on the fundamental principles of America by those of a different ideology.
His pro-abortion action of reversing the Mexico City act, which allows tax dollars to be used to fund foreign abortions, is a victory for liberals and a abomination to conservatives. The same can be said for his decision to allow federal funding for the creation of new embryotic stem cells.
His Stimulus package is considered to be a wise move by liberals that will save the economy. Conservatives view it as an expansion of government, a waste of tax dollars, and a great burden to the future.
Liberals consider his foreign policy decisions have been right on with the emphasis on improved relations with our enemies. Conservatives are enraged that our president would be glad handing the likes of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
There is his stance on the Missile Shield, Israel-Iran, Gitmo, taxes, universal health care, cap and trade, the federal budget, immigration, auto bailouts, government interference of banks and auto companies, free trade, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and his general outlook of America's impact on the world for the last 50 years.
On the issues above, liberals think he is a genius and conservatives think he is an idiot. It is not about one side or another being stupid, brainwashed by FoxNews, or drinking the Kool-Aid. It is simply that liberals and conservatives disagree on the fundamental values of our nation. When you have a president that is an extreme liberal, liberals are going to think he is the savior, and vice-versa.
At the end of the day we have a very liberal president. Liberals will think that he is great for it. Conservatives will think he is terrible for it. Thus we have a polarizing president and a divided nation.
The two big questions remaining are:
If Obama remains this liberal for the next year and a half, will there be more liberals or conservatives voting in the mid-term elections?
If Obama remains this liberal for the next three years, will there be more liberals or conservatives voting in 2012?
Only time will tell.
-The Banker
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Obama Drones Continue to Amaze Me.
So Barry exchanges a handshake with dictator Hugo Chavez and may have a budding bromance with him. (Stupid move, Barry). What's unreal about this is that Chavez is extremely anti-American and literally blames America for the entire problems of the world. So instead of being a man about it, Barry is continually bowing down the socialists, communists, and dictators - as if America's really the problem here. Give me a break, Barry.
Do you know what Hugo Chavez sees in Barack Obama?
It's not hope. It's not change. It's naivete. It's weakness.
So anyway, Chavez hands Obama a blatantly anti-American book, titled "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent" by Eduardo Galeano. Obama (being the doofus that he is and a man with terrible knowledge of foreign policy) accepts the book and has a little handshake and everything is kosher.
Let's get one thing clear: Chavez is not the type of person we should be shaking hands or accepting gifts from. This might be easy for Barry O because (big surprise) he might share some of the same anti-American, anti individual liberty sentiments as Chavez. For the rest of us, this should be seen as shameful.
Now, on to the title of this blog. The best part about this is that the Obama drones run to Amazon and start picking up the book. These people have no shame, and certainly cannot think for themselves. If Barry does it, it must be spectacular! Cut me a break. The modern liberal has lost the ability to think for him/herself (of course, we're not even sure if they were ever able to do that in the first place). Truth be told - there may not be many pictures in the book, so half of these morons who bought the book probably won't ever be interested enough to read it anyway.
The icing on the cake? Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto still sits higher on the best seller list than the little anti-American musings in Obama's hands.
Take that, you drones. Common sense, personal freedom, liberty, and the principles that this country was founded upon will always overtake your leftist agenda at the end of the day.
-The Rocker-
Do you know what Hugo Chavez sees in Barack Obama?
It's not hope. It's not change. It's naivete. It's weakness.
So anyway, Chavez hands Obama a blatantly anti-American book, titled "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent" by Eduardo Galeano. Obama (being the doofus that he is and a man with terrible knowledge of foreign policy) accepts the book and has a little handshake and everything is kosher.
Let's get one thing clear: Chavez is not the type of person we should be shaking hands or accepting gifts from. This might be easy for Barry O because (big surprise) he might share some of the same anti-American, anti individual liberty sentiments as Chavez. For the rest of us, this should be seen as shameful.
Now, on to the title of this blog. The best part about this is that the Obama drones run to Amazon and start picking up the book. These people have no shame, and certainly cannot think for themselves. If Barry does it, it must be spectacular! Cut me a break. The modern liberal has lost the ability to think for him/herself (of course, we're not even sure if they were ever able to do that in the first place). Truth be told - there may not be many pictures in the book, so half of these morons who bought the book probably won't ever be interested enough to read it anyway.
The icing on the cake? Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto still sits higher on the best seller list than the little anti-American musings in Obama's hands.
Take that, you drones. Common sense, personal freedom, liberty, and the principles that this country was founded upon will always overtake your leftist agenda at the end of the day.
-The Rocker-
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Lessons from our Founders
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
There are a couple of big points that need to be remembered by the American people.
First, all men are created equal. We have the right idea about equality when it comes to race, gender, and ethnicity. However when it comes to equality based on socioeconomic status, EPIC FAIL. If the US Government were to pass legislation that determined that women had to pay more in taxes than men or that Hispanics had to pay more in taxes than everyone else, there would rightfully be massive protests and outrage. Yet our government has determined that it is acceptable to enforce discriminatory tax policies against wealthy Americans. The justification is that they only make up 5% of Americans. I just wanted to make sure I understand this logic. It is okay to discriminate as long as you discriminate against the minority, in this case the wealthy. Ask yourself this simple question, does the government have to right to discriminate against the minority for the benefit of the majority? The fact that all men are created equal would answer the question in the negative.
Second, we have the right to pursue happiness, but we do not have the right to happiness. The lesson of this is that we have the right to equality of opportunity and not the equality of outcome. People do not have a right to a job. People do not have a right to a standard of living. People do not have a right to homeownership. People have the right to pursue those things. People have the right to live, the right to be free, and the right to use the combination of those two rights to pursue whatever makes them happy as long as it does not conflict to another person's right to live or be free. No one has the right to be happy only the right to try to be happy. That being said, no one has the right to any certain level of income, they only have the right to use their life, freedom, and opportunities to make as much income as they can within the law. If that means that executives make far more than laborers, then that is fine, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is the government robbing the executives from their right to pursue happiness even when the pursuit of that happiness does not interfere with anybody else's rights.
Third, the government derives its power from Americans. Americans do not derive our power from the government. In the political food chain, Americans are at the top of the pecking order. We must not forget that. We do have the ability to stop the government from doing the things that we do not want them to do. We can protest. We can remove them from office by popular vote. In 2010, we are re-electing THE ENTIRE CONGRESS. If the government will not obey the will of the governed, then we replace the government, piece by piece, through peaceful elections. It is the great thing about being an American.
One final point,
...whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.
-The Banker
There are a couple of big points that need to be remembered by the American people.
First, all men are created equal. We have the right idea about equality when it comes to race, gender, and ethnicity. However when it comes to equality based on socioeconomic status, EPIC FAIL. If the US Government were to pass legislation that determined that women had to pay more in taxes than men or that Hispanics had to pay more in taxes than everyone else, there would rightfully be massive protests and outrage. Yet our government has determined that it is acceptable to enforce discriminatory tax policies against wealthy Americans. The justification is that they only make up 5% of Americans. I just wanted to make sure I understand this logic. It is okay to discriminate as long as you discriminate against the minority, in this case the wealthy. Ask yourself this simple question, does the government have to right to discriminate against the minority for the benefit of the majority? The fact that all men are created equal would answer the question in the negative.
Second, we have the right to pursue happiness, but we do not have the right to happiness. The lesson of this is that we have the right to equality of opportunity and not the equality of outcome. People do not have a right to a job. People do not have a right to a standard of living. People do not have a right to homeownership. People have the right to pursue those things. People have the right to live, the right to be free, and the right to use the combination of those two rights to pursue whatever makes them happy as long as it does not conflict to another person's right to live or be free. No one has the right to be happy only the right to try to be happy. That being said, no one has the right to any certain level of income, they only have the right to use their life, freedom, and opportunities to make as much income as they can within the law. If that means that executives make far more than laborers, then that is fine, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is the government robbing the executives from their right to pursue happiness even when the pursuit of that happiness does not interfere with anybody else's rights.
Third, the government derives its power from Americans. Americans do not derive our power from the government. In the political food chain, Americans are at the top of the pecking order. We must not forget that. We do have the ability to stop the government from doing the things that we do not want them to do. We can protest. We can remove them from office by popular vote. In 2010, we are re-electing THE ENTIRE CONGRESS. If the government will not obey the will of the governed, then we replace the government, piece by piece, through peaceful elections. It is the great thing about being an American.
One final point,
...whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.
-The Banker
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tax Day Tea Parties: Raise Your Voices for Liberty.
As the tea parties happen across the US today, I find myself beaming. I am always proud to be an American, and there is certainly a sense of pride today in my country and in my fellow man. With the news media predominately covering the "glory" of the Statist Barry O's campaign over the last few months, and having to listen to so many leftists spew their flawed, empty, rhetoric, it's nice to know that there are some people with some common sense out there. It's refreshing to know that there are people willing to stand up and say "enough is enough."
I encourage everyone to attend a tea party or to do their part today. The Kool Aid drinking leftists out there will do their best to mock you. Let them say what they will, then educate them. Let me explain something to you:
We are at the start of something very great here, my friends. While there may be a bunch of power hungry statists in office, we need to understand that now more than ever the time is crucial for us to rally in support of a common cause. In just a few short months, the leftists in Congress have managed to rack up a bigger debt than this country has ever seen. They will tell you that the free market is to blame, that the government is the only solution, that the government has to spend more and then implement higher taxes on business in order to save you.
Do not be fooled by this rhetoric. It is a way to make you feel inferior, as if you have to rely on the federal government to help you. Look at the mismanagement of funds by this government. Look at the debt they have racked up. Who do you think has a better say on how you should handle your finances - the federal government, or you - the hardworking American.
You work hard for your money. The time is now to stand up against this soft tyranny that is taking place. One must step back and look at our principles - we believe in the United States Constitution and the rights granted to us by it. We believe in fiscal responsibility. We believe in less government control over American citizens. We believe in the right to property, liberty, and personal happiness and freedom.
Let's look at the logic - the leftists want to spend more and more money (which has to come from somewhere...you, your children, and your children's children and beyond will be responsible for paying this gargantuan debt back), and then they want to tax the small businesses and corporations that are responsible for employing Americans in the first place. Tell me, how by spending all of this money (and rewarding bad behavior for failed business models), and then implementing more taxes on the businesses who are the backbones of employment, we are supposed to come out on top?
The leftists and those in the Barry Obama administration will tell you government is the answer. They will propose to "create" more government jobs - thus putting more citizens in debt to the federal government. I want to be clear on something here: the government is not responsible for creating jobs. Barack Obama does not "create" a single job. It is the private sector. It is you, the hardworking citizen who is responsible for job creation and growth. In America, we all have the opportunity to success - it is one of the many things that makes this country so great. We all are awarded freedoms and liberties that are not allowed in other countries. Do not ever let them take this away from you.
Yesterday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the following: “I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state" when backing a resolution that reaffirms state sovereignty, which is granted by the 10th Amendment. This is what pop culture likes to refer to as an "epic win."
My point is this: Do not let the leftist sway you with their empty rhetoric. Goons like Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and tons of Obama drones alike will tell you that your efforts are silly, that you are protesting for no reason. They will mock the tea parties and call them "teabagging" parties - as seen in my previous post. I want you to understand that this is their desperate attempt to lash out at you. They are scared, because they know that as we grow stronger, there will be less faith in their leftist agenda.
America was created on sound principles. America was not created to let the government gain total control over its citizens and their finances. So again, protest the Statists in office. Do not be fooled by Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, or any of the others. We are America, and we must stand up and let our voices be heard. This wasteful government spending is getting out of control. The federal government is growing at an alarming rate. It is you, the hardworking taxpayer who is responsible for this country - not Barack Obama. Stand up and cheer for America, and do not ever forget these principles on which this country was founded on.
May God bless you all, and may God bless America.
-The Rocker-
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Proof you cannot reason with a liberal. My "insightful" chat with one tonight.
So I've been dormant for a little bit. I get that. I've been busy. I will riff on this later (and other things that need to be said), but basically let's get right to the point, shall we?
I am sick and tired of hearing everyone praise Barack Obama for his courageous efforts in the pirate situation. In reality, he made no operational decision. He sat on it for days, as if the Captain's life was not in immediate danger for terrorists. Then when it seemed to play out okay and the navy did their job, he steps up and takes credit and the liberals are praising him.
For what? A job that he should have done days before? He avoided the issue, waited to see how it played out, and then took credit for it. He waited to see what would happen. Once the Navy did an excellent job doing what they were supposed to do, then he was hailed. If things went haywire, he wouldn't have had a fingerprint on the thing. All he did was sign a paper (finally) saying that action would be taken. Any president should have taken action against the terrorists.
So, how does the title relate to the above paragraphs?
Well, I made the mistake of trying to engage an Obama drinking kool-aid lib tonight. The problem with these people is that you cannot reason with them. They live in their own reality in which they create, and do not accept any outside thought - this is what makes the left so scary to me.
The most interesting part to me about this engagement is that I wasn't malicious at all to him. I even tried to just say "hey, I see where you are coming from, maybe we are just misunderstanding each other here" - and that was no good. It's as if the modern "intellectual liberal" doesn't listen to a damn thing anyone else has to say - only the hot air that escapes from their lungs. Forget trying too hard to educate one of these people, they simply just won't have it.
Anyway, this guy in particular had posted a video on a social networking website claiming that conservatives were once again placing foot in mouth as they were ignorantly blaming Obama for not taking action when emerged the triumphant victor - the man standing above all.
What follows is my conversation with said lib. You can tell I gave up pretty quickly, as he wasn't going to listen to reason. First there was my initial comment, and then a chat to follow:
The rocker:
Obama had nothing to do with the rescue though. Obama didn't make any operational decisions. He did, however sign a paper from some lawyers authorizing the military to do what they are supposed to do in the first place. I think you've got the message wrong there, guy. Just saying. That being said, at least everything turned out okay. We should be praising the brave navy seals who went in and did the job - not Barack Obama.
Obama Kool Aid Drinking Lib:
did i in any way praise barack obama here? i just said these guys were idiots because they assumed the navy was doing nothing. plus, the president gave a direct order to take the bastards out.of course this captain was saved thanks to our brave men in uniform. by the way, there is a cool teabagging party on the 15th you might want to attend. i am sure all the sarah palin fans will be there. Have fun!
The Rocker:
lol wow that was a little harsh, don't you think? I wasn't trying to incite any anger here, guy. You said nothing about Obama, i was merely reading the video description and commenting on that. No hard feelings here. I was just saying that Obama didn't have much to do in regards to this.
Shortly thereafter (as I should have just left it alone), I decided to ping him and make my peace - just to see how he would take it if someone tried to say, "okay, i'll call a truce." (My theories as to how he would act came to be correct, as this proved to be a big mistake)...
The Rocker
hey man, im not trying to start anything, my bad if that pissed you off. I'm not much into online wars anyway.
Obama Kool-Aid Drinking Lib:
watch the video. see the douchebag comments. plus, the president gave a direct order to take out those terrorists
The Rocker
yeah, i know...i have been reading up on everything that happened and have been keeping up with it over the last couple of days.
Obama Kool-Aid Drinking Lib:
the prez had EVERYTHING to do with it. he had been receiving up to 6 updates a day on the situation. he gave the exec order to kill them. i dont know where u got your info but you are wrong about him having nothing to do with it.
but at the same time it is standard operating procedure
we dont negotiate with terrorists
so, in that sense you are right
no comment?
The Rocker
? sorry my chat didn't send it properly. hang on,
the original post was something along the lines of:
sorry chat is still going haywire, original post was something along this: my point was that there should have been zero negotiation, and that in reality he didn't have to do much with the situation, just sign a paper and then not comment on the situation before or after. So I'm not sure if maybe you and I are just at some sort of misunderstanding here
Obama Kool-Aid Drinking Lib:
maybe so, but my whole point was the douchebags on fox news should have assumed the prez was doing the proper prez thing and handling it all through back channels. he of course doesnt deserve much praise because it is what any prez would have done
The Rocker
in some regards that is true. I was and am irritated at the fact that it seems as if he waited on the decision for awhile, as if for some reason the captain's life wasn't in any sort of danger. So it was as if (IMHO) that he waited it out to see the outcome, and then essentially signed an order doing what should have been done in the first place. So in that respect, I don't see it as a victory or even much of a total failure in that regard. I just don't understand why I keep seeing things on the internet praising him
Anyway, to be perfectly honest with you, it's late and I have to be in the office in the morning. If I don't cut this off now, then I will be here online going back and forth all night, where it's not as if i feel that either side is making an invalid point. So in that case, I'm going to peace out and go to bed, I have tons of shit to catch up on in the AM. Have a good night though, dude.
The best part is yet to come, the kool aid lib's perfect response
Obama Kool-Aid Drinking Lib:
nice sarah palin fanpage on your profile. maybe she will let you come sit on her porch and watch the russians
...and there you have it, folks. You can't reason with the unreasonable. Even if you try and be nice, they will mock you and create their own reality. I'm just baffled at the sheer and utter stupidity and narrow mindedness of these people.
I'll analyze the argument later and break it down, but I want you to notice his rhetoric. He ignores any points I make, has his list of talking points, blames Fox News (typical liberal defense - did I ever even mention Fox News to him? I don't think so), proceeds to mention the "teabagging party" (as he so eloquently called it) - a matter which is 100 percent not related to the issue at hand, and then when all else fails, resorts to personal attacks to emulate a "well, I certainly showed him" style of response. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself I suppose.
Typical. All fluff, no substance with these people. I'm out. I need to sleep.
-The Rocker-
I am sick and tired of hearing everyone praise Barack Obama for his courageous efforts in the pirate situation. In reality, he made no operational decision. He sat on it for days, as if the Captain's life was not in immediate danger for terrorists. Then when it seemed to play out okay and the navy did their job, he steps up and takes credit and the liberals are praising him.
For what? A job that he should have done days before? He avoided the issue, waited to see how it played out, and then took credit for it. He waited to see what would happen. Once the Navy did an excellent job doing what they were supposed to do, then he was hailed. If things went haywire, he wouldn't have had a fingerprint on the thing. All he did was sign a paper (finally) saying that action would be taken. Any president should have taken action against the terrorists.
So, how does the title relate to the above paragraphs?
Well, I made the mistake of trying to engage an Obama drinking kool-aid lib tonight. The problem with these people is that you cannot reason with them. They live in their own reality in which they create, and do not accept any outside thought - this is what makes the left so scary to me.
The most interesting part to me about this engagement is that I wasn't malicious at all to him. I even tried to just say "hey, I see where you are coming from, maybe we are just misunderstanding each other here" - and that was no good. It's as if the modern "intellectual liberal" doesn't listen to a damn thing anyone else has to say - only the hot air that escapes from their lungs. Forget trying too hard to educate one of these people, they simply just won't have it.
Anyway, this guy in particular had posted a video on a social networking website claiming that conservatives were once again placing foot in mouth as they were ignorantly blaming Obama for not taking action when emerged the triumphant victor - the man standing above all.
What follows is my conversation with said lib. You can tell I gave up pretty quickly, as he wasn't going to listen to reason. First there was my initial comment, and then a chat to follow:
The rocker:
Obama had nothing to do with the rescue though. Obama didn't make any operational decisions. He did, however sign a paper from some lawyers authorizing the military to do what they are supposed to do in the first place. I think you've got the message wrong there, guy. Just saying. That being said, at least everything turned out okay. We should be praising the brave navy seals who went in and did the job - not Barack Obama.
Obama Kool Aid Drinking Lib:
did i in any way praise barack obama here? i just said these guys were idiots because they assumed the navy was doing nothing. plus, the president gave a direct order to take the bastards out.of course this captain was saved thanks to our brave men in uniform. by the way, there is a cool teabagging party on the 15th you might want to attend. i am sure all the sarah palin fans will be there. Have fun!
The Rocker:
lol wow that was a little harsh, don't you think? I wasn't trying to incite any anger here, guy. You said nothing about Obama, i was merely reading the video description and commenting on that. No hard feelings here. I was just saying that Obama didn't have much to do in regards to this.
Shortly thereafter (as I should have just left it alone), I decided to ping him and make my peace - just to see how he would take it if someone tried to say, "okay, i'll call a truce." (My theories as to how he would act came to be correct, as this proved to be a big mistake)...
The Rocker
hey man, im not trying to start anything, my bad if that pissed you off. I'm not much into online wars anyway.
Obama Kool-Aid Drinking Lib:
watch the video. see the douchebag comments. plus, the president gave a direct order to take out those terrorists
The Rocker
yeah, i know...i have been reading up on everything that happened and have been keeping up with it over the last couple of days.
Obama Kool-Aid Drinking Lib:
the prez had EVERYTHING to do with it. he had been receiving up to 6 updates a day on the situation. he gave the exec order to kill them. i dont know where u got your info but you are wrong about him having nothing to do with it.
but at the same time it is standard operating procedure
we dont negotiate with terrorists
so, in that sense you are right
no comment?
The Rocker
? sorry my chat didn't send it properly. hang on,
the original post was something along the lines of:
sorry chat is still going haywire, original post was something along this: my point was that there should have been zero negotiation, and that in reality he didn't have to do much with the situation, just sign a paper and then not comment on the situation before or after. So I'm not sure if maybe you and I are just at some sort of misunderstanding here
Obama Kool-Aid Drinking Lib:
maybe so, but my whole point was the douchebags on fox news should have assumed the prez was doing the proper prez thing and handling it all through back channels. he of course doesnt deserve much praise because it is what any prez would have done
The Rocker
in some regards that is true. I was and am irritated at the fact that it seems as if he waited on the decision for awhile, as if for some reason the captain's life wasn't in any sort of danger. So it was as if (IMHO) that he waited it out to see the outcome, and then essentially signed an order doing what should have been done in the first place. So in that respect, I don't see it as a victory or even much of a total failure in that regard. I just don't understand why I keep seeing things on the internet praising him
Anyway, to be perfectly honest with you, it's late and I have to be in the office in the morning. If I don't cut this off now, then I will be here online going back and forth all night, where it's not as if i feel that either side is making an invalid point. So in that case, I'm going to peace out and go to bed, I have tons of shit to catch up on in the AM. Have a good night though, dude.
The best part is yet to come, the kool aid lib's perfect response
Obama Kool-Aid Drinking Lib:
nice sarah palin fanpage on your profile. maybe she will let you come sit on her porch and watch the russians
...and there you have it, folks. You can't reason with the unreasonable. Even if you try and be nice, they will mock you and create their own reality. I'm just baffled at the sheer and utter stupidity and narrow mindedness of these people.
I'll analyze the argument later and break it down, but I want you to notice his rhetoric. He ignores any points I make, has his list of talking points, blames Fox News (typical liberal defense - did I ever even mention Fox News to him? I don't think so), proceeds to mention the "teabagging party" (as he so eloquently called it) - a matter which is 100 percent not related to the issue at hand, and then when all else fails, resorts to personal attacks to emulate a "well, I certainly showed him" style of response. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself I suppose.
Typical. All fluff, no substance with these people. I'm out. I need to sleep.
-The Rocker-
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Creative Destruction
There is an element to capitalism, and economics in general, that I feel it is important to bring up in our current economic situation. It is called creative destruction. The concept has two definitive points to it. First, is the point that new innovation will kill off old and outdated products and industries. Think about what Cd's did to cassettes and what the iPod is doing to Cd's. As the new innovation came along, the old process died out. Second, is that when something dies out, other products and industries will pick up the remaining market share. The best example here is the collapse of Washington Mutual and Wachovia. They died out and their customers went to other banks. This is what creative destruction is, and it is a great thing.
It sickens me that our elected officials are so short sighted that they forget about this great feature of a free market economy. I am tired of hearing that if General Motors goes bankrupt, then it will mean millions of people will be out of work and that it will be a death nail to the United States manufacturing industry. I actually heard someone dumb enough to say that "as GM goes, the US goes." There is not doubt that if GM goes bankrupt it will cause a temporary increase in unemployment and a temporary drop in US manufacturing, but this is where creative destruction kicks in to make it better.
If General Motors goes out of business and never makes a car again, (which for the record is not what would happen if they filed bankruptcy) the result would not lead to an equal drop in demand for cars. The reality is that the demand for cars would stay roughly the same in the short term and would be completely unchanged in the long term. As a result, other car companies would have to make more cars to meet that demand and capture GM's old market share. These companies would have to open new plants, buy more parts, hire more workers, etc. The closure of General Motors would spur the growth of other auto makers. Many of the jobs lost by the General Motors closure would be re-created by this growth. In fact, the real reason that the White House and Democrats are trying so hard to save GM and Chrysler is because they know that these new jobs will be created in "Right to Work" states and will probably not be union jobs. Since union workers are such a big part of the democratic constituency, these people must stay employed so democrats can continue to have control of those Midwest swing states.
The other current example of creative destruction not being allowed to run its course is in newspapers. To be clear, the internet has made print journalism largely obsolete. Add in the growing popularity of Kindles and it is easy to see that printing newspapers is not good business anymore. Internet news sources can be more current and offer a wider variety of opinion. It is cheaper for the reader and in most cases, makes more economic sense to the newspaper company than the print copy. This is how creative destruction makes a process better but must destroy an old process in the act. Once again, the liberals in this country do not want to see creative destruction run its course in this instance because it is harmful to them. Liberal ideology runs the print media and has a nice monopoly of information going. However, once the medium for sharing information goes to the internet completely, then competing viewpoints are more easily accessible and widely distributed. Just think about how much liberals hate Fox News. Once upon a time you had to get your news with a liberal bias. Because of creative destruction that is no longer becoming the case.
Creative destruction is a great thing. It makes life better for our nation as a whole. Just remember, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
- The Banker
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The Banker goes to a rock show
In an attempt to make me more culturally relevant, the Rocker asked me to come out to see his band play. In spite of having to go to work the next day, I decided to be a good trooper and come watch. The following is the running diary of the night.
10:12 – Finding a parking spot on the square in Denton requires 15 minutes of driving in circles (I guess technically in squares) until someone is leaving and you are in the right place at the right time. Epic fail.
10:27 – I was supposed to be at the show at 9pm to pre-party with the band, but Pale Rider was on AMC. Then the end of the Bucket List was on and if Morgan Freeman narrates something then I am forced to watch it. After the Bucket List, Cinemax was airing a movie called Super Ninja Bikini Babes. I decided to skip Super Ninja Bikini Babes to go to the Rocker’s show. I am forced to acknowledge the marketing brilliance of adult filmmakers. It is awfully hard to pass up a show titled Super Ninja Bikini Babes, but I am a true fan of Redefine. (The Rocker’s band)
10:29 – The Rocker asks if I Tivo’d Super Ninja Bikini Babes. For the record, I did not. The only thing sadder than Tivoing soft core pornography on Cinemax is a grown man living in his mom’s basement. Or possibly writing a running diary during a rock show.
10:32 – The opening band’s name should have something to do with man boobs.
10:35 – Redefine groupies….check. Bankers do not have groupies. Advantage Rocker.
10:37 – The lead singer of Man Boobs tells an uninterested audience to do something. They do not. Fail.
10:42 – I have gone upstairs on the loft to write in peace. There is a nasty couch up here that looks like it was a hand me down from the club owner’s cousin. The cousin that was an adult filmmaker in the 70s. I have never been afraid of furniture until now.
10:44 – The Man Boobs have a song called “Panty Dropper” that they are about to perform. Unless it is about the fact that they regularly drop their sister’s delicates when they fold laundry back at their parent’s house then it must be entirely fictional.
10:45 – The song is fictional.
10:47 – I wish this place had a cocktail waitress. If a club has multiple levels then it should have either a bar on each level or cocktail waitresses. This needs to be a city building and zoning ordinance. We need to campaign for this kind of change. YES WE CAN!
10:50 – The Man Boobs forget the name of the next band in an extremely awkward silence that is only broken by a member of the crowd that is casually listening and yells out the next band’s name. The Rocker is mortified because Redefine is the next band.
10:52 – The lead singer of Man Boobs gives the following advice about life. “This next song is about fate. It’s in your hands. Live your life and change your fate!” The inspiring words hit me like a ton of bricks. Until I use my brain and realize the irony of controlling your own fate.
10:54 – The song is so good that I have the free time to look up the definition of fate on my Blackberry.
Fate – an inevitable and often adverse outcome, condition, or end.
The key word of that definition is inevitable.
10:58 – The Man Boobs are done. The Rocker is setting the stage for his turn to rock. Time for me to mingle with the crowd.
11:01 – I went to college with the bartenders at the bar. I consider this moment in time as an incredible advertisement for the virtues of occasional class attendance and devoting as much energy towards scholastic achievement as alcoholic beverage consumption when one is attending college. They are good bartenders though so maybe they have a Brian Flanagan thing going.
11:03 – There is a very weird lady walking around looking for the right guy to buy her enough drinks. There is nothing out of the ordinary about seeing girls like this in a college town, but most of them do not dress like the leading lady in an 80s hair band music video. The long, black coat with the fur collar is a nice touch with the overly curled and teased blond hair.
11:08 – Setting up for their turn on stage proves that all band guys are A/V nerds.
11:10 – The Rocker has the coolest rock girlfriend ever. She is also a banker which I feel gives her the above mentioned coolness. She is the perfect hybrid.
11:15 – I can’t help but smile when I think about how many overdraft fees will be caused by bar tabs and pretty girls at the venue tonight. I think this puts me about two steps away from being the kind of evil banker that forecloses on orphanages and the elderly.
11:18 – The rocker uses two guitars to rock but I only need one pen to bank. The pen is mightier.
11:21 – I just looked at the roof here. By no definition of structural integrity would I consider this to be secure. I am literally risking my personal safety by being here. This along with the fact that I passed up Super Ninja Bikini Babes proves my Redefine fan street cred.
11:22 – I want to set up a merch booth at my bank. People need shirts commemorating my banking skills and service, and I need more of their money.
11:24 – Watching the soundboard guys gives me a new found appreciation for him. His job seems extremely too difficult given the size of the soundboard and the number of knobs and buttons on it. He deserves groupies too.
11:25 – I openly wonder why we don’t have more shows about the dumb things that drunk people do. It seems like these kinds of shows would be wildly entertaining.
11:26 – In response to my drunk show question, I am immediately reminded about MTV by those around me. I was completely wrong about the entertainment value of shows about drunk people being idiots.
11:32 – The Rocker does a lot of hair flipping. If there was a talent scout from Pantene or L’Oreal then he would be sponsored in a heartbeat.
11:34 – I am amazed at people that can write original music. The talent it takes to make sound that people will like and lyrics they will identify with is insane.
11:35 – Why are more recorders not used in bands? We all know how to play them. It seems like learning Hot Cross Buns in the 2nd grade is the instrument’s peak.
11:37 – A bearded man in a Hawaiian shirt sits down and is consumed by the mystery couch. The properties of this couch may be of interest to both the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and Stephen Hawking.
11:40 – Someone just bought a shot for the Rocker. This has never happened to me at work. Advantage Rocker.
11:48 – Where on the classiness scale do you place the girl that makes out along the railing of the loft of a smoky bar in Denton, TX with a guy in cargo shorts?
11:51 – The girl on the railing is the weird lady from earlier. Was it the fur collar or the heels that put her Mr. Right Now over the top? Had they made out on the mystery couch my head may have exploded.
12:00 – The Rocker just apologized for something. Rock means never saying you are sorry for anything.
12:01 – The best thing about Redefine, other than the music and the Rocker’s hair, is that the Broski count in the audience is zero. This is a sign of quality music.
12:03 – The audience is fighting one another. I am told this is another sign of quality music.
12:05 – I’m disappointed that Redefine does not have a song about women’s undergarments and the effect of gravity upon said undergarments. They have a lot to learn from Man Boobs.
12:07 – In spite of my concern, I am told that the constipated face that the Rocker is making is a natural and good “rock face”. WebMD begs to differ.
12:15 – The show is over and I am heading home for the night. It was a good show and I learned a lot of interesting things. I mention that the Rocker should come to the bank tomorrow and do a running diary of me at work. He slurs out some kind of response that I think meant that the bank would be closed for the day before he would be awake. The life of a rocker…
- The Banker
10:12 – Finding a parking spot on the square in Denton requires 15 minutes of driving in circles (I guess technically in squares) until someone is leaving and you are in the right place at the right time. Epic fail.
10:27 – I was supposed to be at the show at 9pm to pre-party with the band, but Pale Rider was on AMC. Then the end of the Bucket List was on and if Morgan Freeman narrates something then I am forced to watch it. After the Bucket List, Cinemax was airing a movie called Super Ninja Bikini Babes. I decided to skip Super Ninja Bikini Babes to go to the Rocker’s show. I am forced to acknowledge the marketing brilliance of adult filmmakers. It is awfully hard to pass up a show titled Super Ninja Bikini Babes, but I am a true fan of Redefine. (The Rocker’s band)
10:29 – The Rocker asks if I Tivo’d Super Ninja Bikini Babes. For the record, I did not. The only thing sadder than Tivoing soft core pornography on Cinemax is a grown man living in his mom’s basement. Or possibly writing a running diary during a rock show.
10:32 – The opening band’s name should have something to do with man boobs.
10:35 – Redefine groupies….check. Bankers do not have groupies. Advantage Rocker.
10:37 – The lead singer of Man Boobs tells an uninterested audience to do something. They do not. Fail.
10:42 – I have gone upstairs on the loft to write in peace. There is a nasty couch up here that looks like it was a hand me down from the club owner’s cousin. The cousin that was an adult filmmaker in the 70s. I have never been afraid of furniture until now.
10:44 – The Man Boobs have a song called “Panty Dropper” that they are about to perform. Unless it is about the fact that they regularly drop their sister’s delicates when they fold laundry back at their parent’s house then it must be entirely fictional.
10:45 – The song is fictional.
10:47 – I wish this place had a cocktail waitress. If a club has multiple levels then it should have either a bar on each level or cocktail waitresses. This needs to be a city building and zoning ordinance. We need to campaign for this kind of change. YES WE CAN!
10:50 – The Man Boobs forget the name of the next band in an extremely awkward silence that is only broken by a member of the crowd that is casually listening and yells out the next band’s name. The Rocker is mortified because Redefine is the next band.
10:52 – The lead singer of Man Boobs gives the following advice about life. “This next song is about fate. It’s in your hands. Live your life and change your fate!” The inspiring words hit me like a ton of bricks. Until I use my brain and realize the irony of controlling your own fate.
10:54 – The song is so good that I have the free time to look up the definition of fate on my Blackberry.
Fate – an inevitable and often adverse outcome, condition, or end.
The key word of that definition is inevitable.
10:58 – The Man Boobs are done. The Rocker is setting the stage for his turn to rock. Time for me to mingle with the crowd.
11:01 – I went to college with the bartenders at the bar. I consider this moment in time as an incredible advertisement for the virtues of occasional class attendance and devoting as much energy towards scholastic achievement as alcoholic beverage consumption when one is attending college. They are good bartenders though so maybe they have a Brian Flanagan thing going.
11:03 – There is a very weird lady walking around looking for the right guy to buy her enough drinks. There is nothing out of the ordinary about seeing girls like this in a college town, but most of them do not dress like the leading lady in an 80s hair band music video. The long, black coat with the fur collar is a nice touch with the overly curled and teased blond hair.
11:08 – Setting up for their turn on stage proves that all band guys are A/V nerds.
11:10 – The Rocker has the coolest rock girlfriend ever. She is also a banker which I feel gives her the above mentioned coolness. She is the perfect hybrid.
11:15 – I can’t help but smile when I think about how many overdraft fees will be caused by bar tabs and pretty girls at the venue tonight. I think this puts me about two steps away from being the kind of evil banker that forecloses on orphanages and the elderly.
11:18 – The rocker uses two guitars to rock but I only need one pen to bank. The pen is mightier.
11:21 – I just looked at the roof here. By no definition of structural integrity would I consider this to be secure. I am literally risking my personal safety by being here. This along with the fact that I passed up Super Ninja Bikini Babes proves my Redefine fan street cred.
11:22 – I want to set up a merch booth at my bank. People need shirts commemorating my banking skills and service, and I need more of their money.
11:24 – Watching the soundboard guys gives me a new found appreciation for him. His job seems extremely too difficult given the size of the soundboard and the number of knobs and buttons on it. He deserves groupies too.
11:25 – I openly wonder why we don’t have more shows about the dumb things that drunk people do. It seems like these kinds of shows would be wildly entertaining.
11:26 – In response to my drunk show question, I am immediately reminded about MTV by those around me. I was completely wrong about the entertainment value of shows about drunk people being idiots.
11:32 – The Rocker does a lot of hair flipping. If there was a talent scout from Pantene or L’Oreal then he would be sponsored in a heartbeat.
11:34 – I am amazed at people that can write original music. The talent it takes to make sound that people will like and lyrics they will identify with is insane.
11:35 – Why are more recorders not used in bands? We all know how to play them. It seems like learning Hot Cross Buns in the 2nd grade is the instrument’s peak.
11:37 – A bearded man in a Hawaiian shirt sits down and is consumed by the mystery couch. The properties of this couch may be of interest to both the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and Stephen Hawking.
11:40 – Someone just bought a shot for the Rocker. This has never happened to me at work. Advantage Rocker.
11:48 – Where on the classiness scale do you place the girl that makes out along the railing of the loft of a smoky bar in Denton, TX with a guy in cargo shorts?
11:51 – The girl on the railing is the weird lady from earlier. Was it the fur collar or the heels that put her Mr. Right Now over the top? Had they made out on the mystery couch my head may have exploded.
12:00 – The Rocker just apologized for something. Rock means never saying you are sorry for anything.
12:01 – The best thing about Redefine, other than the music and the Rocker’s hair, is that the Broski count in the audience is zero. This is a sign of quality music.
12:03 – The audience is fighting one another. I am told this is another sign of quality music.
12:05 – I’m disappointed that Redefine does not have a song about women’s undergarments and the effect of gravity upon said undergarments. They have a lot to learn from Man Boobs.
12:07 – In spite of my concern, I am told that the constipated face that the Rocker is making is a natural and good “rock face”. WebMD begs to differ.
12:15 – The show is over and I am heading home for the night. It was a good show and I learned a lot of interesting things. I mention that the Rocker should come to the bank tomorrow and do a running diary of me at work. He slurs out some kind of response that I think meant that the bank would be closed for the day before he would be awake. The life of a rocker…
- The Banker
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Switzerland Bound
There is a lot of talk in Washington about fighting for American jobs. Talks about wanting to keep companies from outsourcing jobs to other countries. While nearly all economists will agree that preventing such things from happening is not good for the nation's overall economy, I can respect the desires to protect American jobs.
The problem is that the actions that Washington is taking, specifically higher business taxes, are actually chasing companies away from the United States. Washington's solution to this problem has been to propose higher taxes on companies that outsource jobs. It does not take much to see the flaw in this logic.
In the mean time there are quite a few major businesses that are looking to move their business to other, more tax friendly nations. This is an excellent story about the benefits that Switzerland is feeling because of their business friendly tax code.
A tax code that is not business friendly is not the way to spur economic growth in a time of recession. It is about like throwing water on a fire to make it burn.
- The Banker
The problem is that the actions that Washington is taking, specifically higher business taxes, are actually chasing companies away from the United States. Washington's solution to this problem has been to propose higher taxes on companies that outsource jobs. It does not take much to see the flaw in this logic.
In the mean time there are quite a few major businesses that are looking to move their business to other, more tax friendly nations. This is an excellent story about the benefits that Switzerland is feeling because of their business friendly tax code.
A tax code that is not business friendly is not the way to spur economic growth in a time of recession. It is about like throwing water on a fire to make it burn.
- The Banker
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Too poor to what?
This is just a quick commentary, but I was driving around today trying to find something to eat for lunch. I was in the uptown area, and found myself at a stoplight behind a car that is easily 15-20 thousand dollars more expensive than mine. Normally, make, model, and price of an automobile is of little importance to me. However, when it comes to this story, it is 100% vital to what I have to say. On the back of this particular automobile was a bumper sticker that read the following:
"Too poor to vote Republican."
Besides the fact that there are many obvious things wrong with this claim (you know, the tired, old argument that the Republican party is only comprised of a few hundred rich white guys), it occurred to me that for every idiot who has this sticker on their car, we should replace it with a more truthful statement. I propose the following:
"Too stupid to properly comprehend economics."
There, that seems much more logical, doesn't it? In fact, the sentence above seems to make more sense, and certainly seems to fall in line more with the current liberal philosophy of spend, spend, spend - nevermind where all this "mystery money" is supposed to come from. But don't worry - Nancy Pelosi needs 30 million dollars of your hard earned money for a mouse, and the eco-marxists in congress need millions more for electric golf carts to get around Washington.
Just an observation.
-The Rocker-
"Too poor to vote Republican."
Besides the fact that there are many obvious things wrong with this claim (you know, the tired, old argument that the Republican party is only comprised of a few hundred rich white guys), it occurred to me that for every idiot who has this sticker on their car, we should replace it with a more truthful statement. I propose the following:
"Too stupid to properly comprehend economics."
There, that seems much more logical, doesn't it? In fact, the sentence above seems to make more sense, and certainly seems to fall in line more with the current liberal philosophy of spend, spend, spend - nevermind where all this "mystery money" is supposed to come from. But don't worry - Nancy Pelosi needs 30 million dollars of your hard earned money for a mouse, and the eco-marxists in congress need millions more for electric golf carts to get around Washington.
Just an observation.
-The Rocker-
Friday, February 20, 2009
It's simple, Stupid
With everyone rushing to determine what is the best thing to do to stimulate the economy, I decided it is a good time to offer my advice to individuals. There is a lot of conflicting ideas about what the average American should do once they start receiving that extra $12 a week.
The answer is simple. Americans need to live responsibly. Americans need to save money and make sound investments. Americans need to live at their means, possibly below them for a while - depending on their current state of debt.
In addition, the last thing that the average American needs to do is increase their consumption spending, unless the individual as the means and the desire to increase the spending.
It is outrageous that we have a government that is trying to manipulate Americans into increasing their consumer spending. It is reckless, irresponsible, and incredibly short sighted. The fact that the tax credit in the stimulus package that Americans are getting is divided up to promote spending instead of given in lump sum (which would promote saving and debt reduction) is a clear example of the selfishness of those in power.
To be clear, the government wants an increase in consumption spending because it makes the economy look better now. Consumption spending does not fix the root cause of the economic problem nor does it promote long term economic growth. Our "leaders" are only after consumption spending because it looks good in the short term and ultimately, their only concern is the short term. There are elections coming up in 2010 and 2012. Those people that are currently in power merely want to inflate the economy long enough to get re-elected.
The alternate, which is Americans saving and investing instead of spending, would lead to long term economic growth but would most likely cause short term loss. Some industries would suffer if luxury spending tightens even further and that is unfortunate. The important thing is that while a few would suffer, the great majority of Americans would be much better off.
On a national level, the savings and investment would lead to a growing economy that is more stable. Private investment equals growth because private investors invest money in places where they have a high expectation of return.
On a personal level, the average American would be in a great financial position with more money saved, more money invested, and with less debt. To boot, once individuals reach a point where they have lower debt with more money saved and invested, they will start to increase their spending. Only this spending is done at a sustainable level.
The great thing about a capitalistic economy is that if everyone acts in their own best interest in a legal way, then the economy does well as a whole. It is only in a socialistic society where individuals are asked to sacrifice their own interests for the good of the society as a whole....
-The Banker
The answer is simple. Americans need to live responsibly. Americans need to save money and make sound investments. Americans need to live at their means, possibly below them for a while - depending on their current state of debt.
In addition, the last thing that the average American needs to do is increase their consumption spending, unless the individual as the means and the desire to increase the spending.
It is outrageous that we have a government that is trying to manipulate Americans into increasing their consumer spending. It is reckless, irresponsible, and incredibly short sighted. The fact that the tax credit in the stimulus package that Americans are getting is divided up to promote spending instead of given in lump sum (which would promote saving and debt reduction) is a clear example of the selfishness of those in power.
To be clear, the government wants an increase in consumption spending because it makes the economy look better now. Consumption spending does not fix the root cause of the economic problem nor does it promote long term economic growth. Our "leaders" are only after consumption spending because it looks good in the short term and ultimately, their only concern is the short term. There are elections coming up in 2010 and 2012. Those people that are currently in power merely want to inflate the economy long enough to get re-elected.
The alternate, which is Americans saving and investing instead of spending, would lead to long term economic growth but would most likely cause short term loss. Some industries would suffer if luxury spending tightens even further and that is unfortunate. The important thing is that while a few would suffer, the great majority of Americans would be much better off.
On a national level, the savings and investment would lead to a growing economy that is more stable. Private investment equals growth because private investors invest money in places where they have a high expectation of return.
On a personal level, the average American would be in a great financial position with more money saved, more money invested, and with less debt. To boot, once individuals reach a point where they have lower debt with more money saved and invested, they will start to increase their spending. Only this spending is done at a sustainable level.
The great thing about a capitalistic economy is that if everyone acts in their own best interest in a legal way, then the economy does well as a whole. It is only in a socialistic society where individuals are asked to sacrifice their own interests for the good of the society as a whole....
-The Banker
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Our Green President
One of the most important aspects of being POTUS is your ability to keep your composure when there is a crisis. This particularly important because it gives confidence to average Americans to see their leadership in control and positive. President Obama's ability to keep his composure during this economic downturn has been an abject disaster. Either President Obama has no ability to keep his cool under pressure or he is using fear as a political tool. Both explanations are a condemnation of his ability to lead this country.
President Obama often likes to talk about FDR as an example of how he must handle the current situation. While I find the constant public references to the Depression to be repugnant, if he is to learn something from FDR, maybe it should be how to remain confident and optimistic about the nation's economy. That is, unless President Obama does want to undermine consumer confidence in order to promote his economic agenda. I for one would like to believe that my President would not intentionally undermine our nations confidence for political gain. I did not believe it when President Bush was accused of it, and I refuse to believe it when President Obama is accused of it.
The sad truth of the situation is that President Obama is inexperienced and naive. He is doing the best that he can to deal with the problems of our nation. He wants to fix the problems and improve the lives of everyday Americans. However, the problem is that his naivete is causing him to be overrun by other members of his party. His inexperience and idealism is causing him to make decisions that are neither pragmatic nor practical. It is my hope that he is learning from the mistakes he is making right now so that we can look forward to better leadership from him. So far, President Obama's leadership has been an oxymoron.
-The Banker-
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Barry Obama - caught red-handed lying on his own website.
Barack Obama is already not living up to his promises - just three weeks into his Presidency. On change.gov, Obama promises the following in regards to his "Ethics Agenda":
(source: http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/)
Now, look at this video posted today by Chairman Tom Price (R-GA):
Funny...I thought Barack Obama promised in writing that there would be no more closed door meetings. If that's the case, then what the hell is going on here?
So this is the new era of Obama - agree with Barack Obama, or get the hell out of the room. In pure Alinsky-esque fashion, opposing viewpoints are ignored and then they attempt to laugh them off as dismissible and destroy them. This is not democracy. This man is holding his first job ever as President of the United States, and has no idea how to handle conflict. He and Pelosi shut out the voices of all who oppose in order to further push ahead their Socialist agenda. These people are Socialists, they are Marxists, and they are power hungry. They don't care about anything more than retaining their own power. America, we must stand up against this style of politics before it's too late.
-The Rocker-
End the Practice of Writing Legislation Behind Closed Doors: As president, Barack Obama will restore the American people's trust in their government by making government more open and transparent. Obama will work to reform congressional rules to require all legislative sessions, including committee mark-ups and conference committees, to be conducted in public. By making these practices public, the American people will be able to hold their leaders accountable for wasteful spending and lawmakers won't be able to slip favors for lobbyists into bills at the last minute.
(source: http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/)
Now, look at this video posted today by Chairman Tom Price (R-GA):
Funny...I thought Barack Obama promised in writing that there would be no more closed door meetings. If that's the case, then what the hell is going on here?
So this is the new era of Obama - agree with Barack Obama, or get the hell out of the room. In pure Alinsky-esque fashion, opposing viewpoints are ignored and then they attempt to laugh them off as dismissible and destroy them. This is not democracy. This man is holding his first job ever as President of the United States, and has no idea how to handle conflict. He and Pelosi shut out the voices of all who oppose in order to further push ahead their Socialist agenda. These people are Socialists, they are Marxists, and they are power hungry. They don't care about anything more than retaining their own power. America, we must stand up against this style of politics before it's too late.
-The Rocker-
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Bigger Government Equals Smaller Liberties and Freedom.
Today, Barack Obama decided to put a $500,000 cap on executive pay for financial institutions receiving bailout aid from the government. Before I continue, here's a link to an article about it.
Hold on to your wallets, kids. Now the federal government is dictating how much we can make. I ask you, what's next? I understand that people are concerned with the market and potential for greed and failure, but let's get one thing straight here: it is not the federal government's place to tell anyone in the private sector how much they are allowed to make. Doing so is a complete slap in the face to capitalism and a free market.
I know what some of you are thinking, that maybe the free market isn't working that well currently, so something needs to be done. Here's where you are sadly mistaken. The market will correct itself. There are ups and there are downs, but government bailouts, salary caps, and more wastes of taxpayer money will only prolong the problem.
I am surprised more people aren't upset at this. What's next? How many more jobs is the federal government under the "leadership" of Barry Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of this idiot congress going to screw over?
You democrats want to make it fair? You want to "level the playing field?" Fine. Let's play by your rules. Let's level it out. Here's an idea: what if we took the same limits to Hollywood? Do you think the mouths of P. Diddy, Matt Damon, Kanye West, Susan Sarandon and others would be so big if there was a cap on their salaries? Or what about that jerk Tom Brokaw, with his heinous comments on Inauguration Day in relation to George Bush and Dick Cheney? I'll tell you right now, if I could go a day without having to listen to this media and Hollywood suckfest over this man, I would be a happy camper. While we're at it, let's lower the salaries of these leftists in Congress. Let's not allow these idiots to use their private jets or have their gourmet meals on taxpayer money. Let's say that Al Gore can only make $50,000 a year off his alarmist Global Warming propaganda that he pitches to the world.
Suddenly, it doesn't sound like a good idea to everyone involved screaming at "the man," now does it?
Again, it is not the federal government's job to dictate how much money anyone in this country makes. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - bigger government equals smaller liberties and freedom.
There is much more to say on this subject, but I am on my way out the door and am trying to post on a more consistent basis. I'm out for now.
-The Rocker-
Hold on to your wallets, kids. Now the federal government is dictating how much we can make. I ask you, what's next? I understand that people are concerned with the market and potential for greed and failure, but let's get one thing straight here: it is not the federal government's place to tell anyone in the private sector how much they are allowed to make. Doing so is a complete slap in the face to capitalism and a free market.
I know what some of you are thinking, that maybe the free market isn't working that well currently, so something needs to be done. Here's where you are sadly mistaken. The market will correct itself. There are ups and there are downs, but government bailouts, salary caps, and more wastes of taxpayer money will only prolong the problem.
I am surprised more people aren't upset at this. What's next? How many more jobs is the federal government under the "leadership" of Barry Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of this idiot congress going to screw over?
You democrats want to make it fair? You want to "level the playing field?" Fine. Let's play by your rules. Let's level it out. Here's an idea: what if we took the same limits to Hollywood? Do you think the mouths of P. Diddy, Matt Damon, Kanye West, Susan Sarandon and others would be so big if there was a cap on their salaries? Or what about that jerk Tom Brokaw, with his heinous comments on Inauguration Day in relation to George Bush and Dick Cheney? I'll tell you right now, if I could go a day without having to listen to this media and Hollywood suckfest over this man, I would be a happy camper. While we're at it, let's lower the salaries of these leftists in Congress. Let's not allow these idiots to use their private jets or have their gourmet meals on taxpayer money. Let's say that Al Gore can only make $50,000 a year off his alarmist Global Warming propaganda that he pitches to the world.
Suddenly, it doesn't sound like a good idea to everyone involved screaming at "the man," now does it?
Again, it is not the federal government's job to dictate how much money anyone in this country makes. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - bigger government equals smaller liberties and freedom.
There is much more to say on this subject, but I am on my way out the door and am trying to post on a more consistent basis. I'm out for now.
-The Rocker-
Friday, January 23, 2009
Barack Obama gave me pink eye
So I am sitting here at my apartment in a state of quarantine. I went to the optometrist this morning because I have been suffering what I thought to be problems with my allergies since Tuesday. To my surprise I was informed that I in fact have come down with a case of pink eye. I know that pink eye is not a rare abnormality, but it is for me. To make matters worse, I require contacts in order to see clearly any more than six inches from my face, and due to the eye drops I have to take, I am operating for the weekend without the ability to see. The comedy of watching me strain my eyes with my nose brushing the computer monitor as I type these very words is worthy of the finest juvenile entertainers.
Other than my complete boredom and borderline humiliation due to helplessness, there are other problems with my ailment. For starters, I have been of little value at work for the last few days because I have not been able to see clearly or deal with other people since the sight of my irritated eyes is enough to inspire memories of Night of the Living Dead. Due to the quarantine, I have obviously had to miss work entirely today. The last thing the American economy needs right now is for another banker to not be working.
In addition to missing work, I will also be missing my opportunity to receive my concealed handgun license (CHL) tomorrow. I have been looking forward to this for quite some time. But the significance of me missing my CHL class is not merely one of my personal disappointment or of the lack of increased security that my fellow Americans would have felt with my enhanced ability to protect myself and others from violent criminals (possible terrorists and a few ninjas). The real significance of my missing the CHL class is that it shines the light upon the cause of my illness.
Newly elected President Barack Obama.
To be quite frank, Barack Obama gave me pink eye. I borrowed the logic of a few liberal acquaintances to deduce this profound conclusion. It was quite simple logic in fact.
I did not have pink eye for the previous eight years, but I was infected with pink eye on the same day that Barack Obama was sworn in as president. That in and of itself clearly proves that he is the cause of the pink eye. He was in office when the pink eye occurred and for that reason the blame falls squarely upon him. It is his responsibility to ensure the health of the American people. When George W. Bush was the president, his eye care policies produced eight years in which I did not suffer from pink eye. However Obama's eye care policies have been a abject failures and I have paid the price. Not only have his policies failed to prevent me from getting pink eye, but I have yet to receive a single shred of federal aid to ensure my own personal well being. I think it is because Barack Obama hates Texans. I can see no other explanation.
His motivation for giving me pink eye is clear. Barack Obama did not want me to get my CHL. He is a proponent of limiting gun rights and so is doing whatever he has the ability to do in order to prevent me from getting my CHL. Which in this case meant I had to get pink eye. Barack Obama purposely introduced pink eye into my community because he hates Texans and does not want us to be able to utilize our rights. Once again, the logic is clear. Barack Obama is the president as this happens so it is clearly his fault and his will.
I know what some of you are thinking, "Banker, it is your personal responsibility to maintain the health of your eye. You have to make sure you clean your hands before touching your eyes, avoid people that may also have pink eye, and stay away from places where you can get pink eye." If you are thinking that you are a heartless idiot and obviously hate Texans too. It is the government's job to remove all pink eye hazards from this nation in order to protect me from them. George W. Bush apparently did this because I never got pink eye when he was the president. Barack Obama has failed to do this since I now have pink eye.
So I have pink eye. Barack Obama gave me pink eye. It is his fault and it is his responsibility to fix it. He should be impeached for letting it happen. At the very least I can not wait until 2012 to get him out of office so we can enjoy the eye health that we enjoyed during the Bush administration.
-the Banker
Other than my complete boredom and borderline humiliation due to helplessness, there are other problems with my ailment. For starters, I have been of little value at work for the last few days because I have not been able to see clearly or deal with other people since the sight of my irritated eyes is enough to inspire memories of Night of the Living Dead. Due to the quarantine, I have obviously had to miss work entirely today. The last thing the American economy needs right now is for another banker to not be working.
In addition to missing work, I will also be missing my opportunity to receive my concealed handgun license (CHL) tomorrow. I have been looking forward to this for quite some time. But the significance of me missing my CHL class is not merely one of my personal disappointment or of the lack of increased security that my fellow Americans would have felt with my enhanced ability to protect myself and others from violent criminals (possible terrorists and a few ninjas). The real significance of my missing the CHL class is that it shines the light upon the cause of my illness.
Newly elected President Barack Obama.
To be quite frank, Barack Obama gave me pink eye. I borrowed the logic of a few liberal acquaintances to deduce this profound conclusion. It was quite simple logic in fact.
I did not have pink eye for the previous eight years, but I was infected with pink eye on the same day that Barack Obama was sworn in as president. That in and of itself clearly proves that he is the cause of the pink eye. He was in office when the pink eye occurred and for that reason the blame falls squarely upon him. It is his responsibility to ensure the health of the American people. When George W. Bush was the president, his eye care policies produced eight years in which I did not suffer from pink eye. However Obama's eye care policies have been a abject failures and I have paid the price. Not only have his policies failed to prevent me from getting pink eye, but I have yet to receive a single shred of federal aid to ensure my own personal well being. I think it is because Barack Obama hates Texans. I can see no other explanation.
His motivation for giving me pink eye is clear. Barack Obama did not want me to get my CHL. He is a proponent of limiting gun rights and so is doing whatever he has the ability to do in order to prevent me from getting my CHL. Which in this case meant I had to get pink eye. Barack Obama purposely introduced pink eye into my community because he hates Texans and does not want us to be able to utilize our rights. Once again, the logic is clear. Barack Obama is the president as this happens so it is clearly his fault and his will.
I know what some of you are thinking, "Banker, it is your personal responsibility to maintain the health of your eye. You have to make sure you clean your hands before touching your eyes, avoid people that may also have pink eye, and stay away from places where you can get pink eye." If you are thinking that you are a heartless idiot and obviously hate Texans too. It is the government's job to remove all pink eye hazards from this nation in order to protect me from them. George W. Bush apparently did this because I never got pink eye when he was the president. Barack Obama has failed to do this since I now have pink eye.
So I have pink eye. Barack Obama gave me pink eye. It is his fault and it is his responsibility to fix it. He should be impeached for letting it happen. At the very least I can not wait until 2012 to get him out of office so we can enjoy the eye health that we enjoyed during the Bush administration.
-the Banker
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Barack Obama and the Politics of Fear.
I have noticed that democrats typically like to accuse the Bush administration and others of using the "politics of fear." We've all heard the term used very loosely, from Hillary Clinton, to Nancy Pelosi, to even Barack Obama. While I understand the notion and where they are coming from with the argument, there's something that needs to be noticed: Barack Obama also uses the politics of fear on the American public. He claims not to use it, but mixed in with his messages of "hope" and "change" are harsh images of gloom and doom...in order to scare the American people into thinking that his way is the only right way. Such is the way of the Marxist. Let me give you a little insight as to what I'm talking about here.
Barack Obama is constantly praised by the media and his cult of followers for having a positive look to politics. He preaches against the politics of fear, says he is here to put a new face on America, and to spread those two buzzwords that have been affectively marketed to the citizens of America - hope and change. To clarify, let me say that there's nothing wrong with hope and change as words or emotions or even acts...however, what we are "hoping" for is never fully defined, and this "change" that keeps getting defined and then redefined seems to be moving the american public closer to a state of bigger government control and power, a shift away from the democracy and freedoms we currently enjoy and a strategic move towards a quasi-socialist state.
So, that being said, you are probably still asking: how does this play into Barack Obama's speeches and rhetoric?
The answer is simple. Obama spends half of his time painting a picture of a tattered, torn, broken America that is in dire need of repair. He sucks the listener in by saying "this is how bad things are and this is how worse they will get over time." When he's made that point, he offers a simple solution...more government. Let's take an excerpt from his inaugural address:
"That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time."
To some degree, he is correct. The nation has certainly seen better days. However, instead of focusing on the positives of the nation and what can be done to repair parts that are broken, Obama continually poses bigger government as the solution to the problem.
"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government."
What you have to do here is break down what the man is saying and look how it applies to his policies. Obama mentions that we should not ask whether or not government is to small or big (which I think we all know the answer to that question...government continues to expand at an alarming rate - a leviathan that must be subdued and contained before it damages the American public beyond that which we can recover from). However, one look at his policies and ideas for America and we can see that it is obvious how he wants government to be at the center of all. In Obama's America, gone are many of the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy today. The free market will be weakened, government will control healthcare, government will work to nationalize the banking industry, and a "tax credit" will be invoked that in all reality is actually a welfare program - taking money from those who earn it and giving a $1000 "stimulus check" to the portion of Americans who are fitting the Obama demographic which works to expand the percent of the population who already pay no income taxes - thus reinforcing a belief that they should be relying on the government to take care of them, that they should not have to work hard for anything, or take any responsibility for their actions. Suddenly there is a majority of americans who are dependent on the government and not for themselves to provide. Quite simply put, this is not good.
What Obama effectively does in doing this is help to create a voting majority in where people are used to relying on the federal government to fix problems. By spending trillions upon trillions of taxpayer money, he will not fix the deficit. He says that it will be a long road, but truth be told it will be a longer road if there is more government intervention in the market and more intervention in our everyday lives.
This does not even begin to tap the surface of how he and a congress full of Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Schumer, (and potentially even Caroline Kennedy and that never once funny comedian Al Franken) will invoke the fairness doctrine (which censors free political speech, and even more so in a way just that speech which speaks out against the liberal policy), raise the population of labor union forces, and of course, this notion that he should expand the government workforce by an additional 30-40%. Suddenly, before the American people know it (at least for those of us who aren't skeptical), the majority of their lives are in total government control. It may only take a good 4 years to set some of these policies up, but it will take a long time to break them down.
Now, just to show you the difference between a politician that sees the market and liberty as a bad thing and a politician who sees the individual as a good thing and too much government intervention as a bad thing, let me leave you with two quotes from a great leader, Ronald Reagan. Even if you have disagreed with some things he has said, read the quotes...there's no denying that he is dead on in this respect:
"And I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: "As government expands, liberty contracts."
and...
"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the People." "We the People" tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. "We the People" are the driver; the government is the car, and we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the People" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the People" are free."
Both quotes were taken, from Ronald Reagan's farewell address in the oval office.
That, my friends is what it's all about. Before I end this blog post, there is something that I feel must be said. The government shouldn't be controlling your life. The market will rise and it will fall...there will be hard times and there will be easy times. There will be times of prosperity and there will be times of economic depression. However, this one fact remains - it is up to the American people to provide for one another and to ensure the nation grows both morally and economically, be it an upswing or if our wonderful country may take a slight dip from an economic standpoint. The truth remains that this is the greatest nation in the world, and that all must be done to preserve the freedoms and liberties that we are able to enjoy day in and day out. This is my America, this is your America, and no one should ever be able to take that away from us. The peaceful transfer of power from one president to another on January 20th with every new incoming administration and the prosperity of this nation and wonderful liberties and freedoms we enjoy are clear cut examples of this. I ask you as Americans to stand up and make sure this government is returned to that for which it stands...a government for the people, and by the people. May God bless you all, and may God bless this great land and the freedoms and liberties we are granted.
-The Rocker
Monday, January 5, 2009
The Race Card: Will it Ever Stop?
It seems to me that a large part of the liberal philosophy when arguing consists of this: destroy the other side of the argument, even if it means throwing all rationale out the window. Do whatever you can to discredit the opposing viewpoint in order to anhilate and destroy.
Hence, the race card.
We saw this played out time and time again in the general election this year, and it continues with this whole Blagojevich mess conerning Roland Burris. If you weren't going to vote for Barack Obama, it meant you are a racist. If you don't support Roland Burris' nomination by a corrupt Governor, you are racist.
As far as logic, it's thrown out the window. Who cares about standing up for one's political ideals, when you can just be a liberal and accuse everyone of being racist?
Did anyone ever think that a large part of facilitating racism is running around mindlessly while pointing the finger accusing everyone of actually being racist?
At this juncture, I should also point out that African American democrats are constantly celebrated for their appointments and successes, yet it seems as if African American Republicans or Conservatives are hardly ever praised by the mainstream for their efforts. This is a double standard that is inherently racist to me. Great minds like Thomas Sowell are scoffed at, or people like Condoleeza Rice are laughed off as dismissible. Even Colin Powell doesn't win as much acclaim until he endorses Barack Obama. Please explain the logic in this to me.
The truth is, there is no reason why race should even be a factor. I am sick and tired of accusations that someone is racist just because they don't support a candidate from a minority. If I remember, only 13% of the vote came from an African American turnout. This means that 87% of the voting population in 2008 was not African American. Now count me if I'm wrong, but won't the first African American President be sworn in on January 20th? If a large percentage of the population isn't black, and 52% voted for a black man, where is the racism coming in to play?
The truth is, I, like many others, do not care for Barack Obama because of his policies and his ideals. It is his empty rhetoric and leftist voting record we are against - not his race.
In regards to Burris, the race card is also being played, as "activists" are angered at the idea of Burris potentially not taking Barry's senate seat, as is reported by the Associated Press. Even democrats are now pitting the race card against each other, as can be seen in this Politico.com article. Some democrats point the finger to Harry Reid, as they label him a racist because he doesn't support the appointment of another African American to Obama's Senate seat. Amazing now the democrats are at war with each other. Do these people ever stop fighting and just get anything done?
No. They don't. They point the finger. They label. They attempt to destroy any viewpoint with any loss of rationale they can find in order to get thier way. Don't get me wrong - Harry Reid is a complete ass. He and his sidekick, Nancy "stretch" Pelosi are some of the worst people ever to hold public office. However, why do they immediately accuse him of being racist?
I don't support Burris either. It doesn't have to do with his race, it has to do with who is appointing him, and (get ready for it)...his policy views. Why is this so hard for leftists to understand? Everything isn't a race issue. All they are doing is helping fuel the fire of racism. This sort of finger pointing and empty accusations aren't moving us forward, they are just holding everyone back. It's about time that this issue was buried.
My advice to leftist and liberal nutjobs out there? Start basing your thoughts on ideals and viewpoints related to your cause. In addition, be sure to base these viewpoints on matters of substance, not material issues.
-The Rocker-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
