patrick.net

PolishKnight says

Dublin, aren't you a failure for your inability to become extremely rich?

You are incorrectly assuming that the amount of wealth accumulated is how everyone should measure their success or failure.

PolishKnight says

If you did, then you would be in the position to give away money to others in order to set an example for how rich people should act.

Ah... adorably naive to think that the world would work this way...

PolishKnight says

How is your "taking out your frustrations" on the "extremely rich" somehow different than minorities, gays, and unionized employees?

The extremely rich aka. the "aristocracy" actually have power to effect the lives of the 99.9%. Minorities, gays, and unionized employees do not (unless of course they are within the aristocracy.)

YES, knight! Down on your knee and bow to the aristocracy who you serve.

Leoj, your comment is a perfect allegory for the intellectual and moral vacuousness of the leftist belief system.

Even as you claim I'm incorrectly assuming that wealth is a measure of success or failure, you turn around and proclaim that the ultra wealthy are the only ones who actually have power to effect the lives of others. Doesn't that mean that even if the bubbas were to "wise up" and "take one for the team" and toss themselves under the bus for the leftist diversity utopia, that these wealthy aren't going to let their leftist crony politician buddies really take away their vast wealth anyway, yes? Only a Bolshevek style bloody revolution could achieve such a thing and American leftists don't like to use guns!

And in the meantime, the only ones encouraged under the left to form special interest group monopolies are gays, so-called minorities, and unionized employees to send money over to politicians to demand special privileges for their group and set up their own 0.1 percenters. In other words, the average leftist worships the ultra wealthy and powerful. You crave to be a caddy for Obama while he golfs in Martha's Vineyard and chats up the ultra wealthy handing out Solyndra loans. (I hope he plays golf better than he bowls!!!)

In other words, it's all a load of nonsense and even most leftists know this at a subconscious level as limosine liberals. It doesn't make any sense kind of like flying around in private jets and lecturing about how evil oil is while claiming it's not their fault that gas prices are skyrocketing. Good luck with that in November, Obama! Nothing makes voters love the left more than buck a gallon gasoline! Hahaha!

PolishKnight says

In other words, the average leftist worships the ultra wealthy and powerful.

No need to say "leftists" in this comment. The average american worships the ultra-wealthy.

Why the need to be so divisive on an issue that clearly is dear to the hearts of people on the left and right?

PolishKnight says

Doesn't that mean that even if the bubbas were to "wise up" and "take one for the team" and toss themselves under the bus for the leftist diversity utopia, that these wealthy aren't going to let their leftist crony politician buddies really take away their vast wealth anyway, yes?

This run on sentence makes no sense to me. Could you please rephrase your thought more clearly, thanks?

PolishKnight says

Only a Bolshevek style bloody revolution could achieve such a thing and American leftists don't like to use guns!

Bolshevek or not let's hope it does not come to that, also clearly you have to been to the same gun ranges as I have.

Leoj707, it's not a run on sentence. A run on sentence is by definition two or more sentences joined together improperly. But I'll be happy to break it down for you:

"Doesn't that mean that" means I'm restating your claim but in a format I prefer and asking for confirmation. This is followed by:

"even if the bubbas were to "wise up" and "take one for the team" and toss themselves under he bus for the leftist diversity utopia," is a condition leading to a conclusion such as "If X were to happen, then Y would occur". So far, not a runoff!

"that these wealthy aren't going to let their leftist crony politician buddies really take away their vast wealth anyway" Is the conclusion. Followed by ", yes?" which is a rhetorical statement of confirmation.

So there you go. Hope that helps!

Finally, regarding your distaste for violence. If you think it's naive for a newly wealthy member of the 0.1 percent to give away all his wealth to the 99.9%, then wouldn't it be equally naive to assume he'll just stand by and let the self-proclaimed wise leftists just take it away from them? It would probably be trivial to simply buy off the leftists by giving them or their relatives high profile jobs. In other words, have them join you and beat 'em that way!

So bottom line: Getting rid of the dehumanized bubba above, either by politically marginalizing him, sending him off to a Gulag, etc. won't make the USA and ultimately the world into a Swedish style paradise. The left is instead building a combination both by demographics and political style a combination of Mexico, Algeria, Argentina, and of course, Kenya. Not exactly the kind of place that Bay Area snobs living in mostly white suburbs of the Bay Area aspire to. On the bright side, that should drive the value of those suburbs up since EVERYONE apparently wants to live in such places!!!!

PolishKnight says

Finally, regarding your distaste for violence.

Who said I had a distaste for violence?

Article from NPR! LOL
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

copied from NPR Article!
To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/03/21/national-debt-increase-more-under-obama-bush-politico-ignores-developm

Nomo, time to face the music.

Honest Abe says

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/03/21/national-debt-increase-more-under-obama-bush-politico-ignores-developm

Only because Bush left the table without paying for all his food. The bill came in on Obama's term. Hence the graphic Nomograph showed above where Bush's policies cost four times as much as Obama's.

Yes, Obama sucks ass on balancing the budget and paying of the debt, but Bush sucks ass and monkey balls. Either hate them both or neither.

Remember, Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.". He believed that.

That's why we need someone like Ron Paul in charge. For all his crazy ideas, at least Paul would reduce the debt and spending.

Honest Abe says

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/03/21/national-debt-increase-more-under-obama-bush-politico-ignores-developm

Nomo, time to face the music.

For one it is not saying much for a website when it's tag line is its self a lie.

That and nothing that article you linked actually addresses the issues noted in the graph posted by Nomo.

NewsBusters is a far-right propaganda mill.

No it isn't, its a site that exposes liberal bias in the media.