Only a Liberal…

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

delusion - A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence

He has several delusions, but one easy one is his ostensible belief that lowering “carbon” emissions will save the planet. CO2 was 10 times higher than today in an ice age, and the amount of carbon emissions we could decrease would be greatly outweighed by non-American countries, thereby making our efforts fruitless. He, as well as Gore, is delusional.

lunatic - someone who is insane

And the definition of insanity according to Albert Einstein…

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

I refer you to one of my previous posts, where Obama was confronted about the fact that history shows capital gains tax increases result in a tax revenue decrease, and capital gains tax decreases result in tax revenue increases.

“Well, that might happen or it might not.”

He plans to do the same things others have done, and he expects a different result. Obama is, therefore, insane.
This is not a political discussion. I chose my words carefully, and provided evidence and definitions. There are plenty of delusional lunatics in all political parties. I do not classify President Bush as a delusional lunatic, though I am open to someone giving me a specific example of him being one. Bush bailed out banks and companies like Obama, which makes him a fiscal socialist (in 2008), but not a delusional lunatic.

I welcome well-thought out constructive criticism. If you don’t like me being mean to Obama, I have a simple response. There are plenty of people spreading niceness. I’m here to spread truth.

Now there is one counterargument… Obama is not a delusional lunatic, but rather a congenital liar. Those are the only two possibilities based on the evidence. We know he’s comically inept at appointments, as shown by his SIXTH pick with tax problems. I challenge you to find a hole in my logic.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

British Parliament member Daniel Hannan excoriated the Prime Minister of England last week. His 3-minute speech pretty much sums up the fundamental problems with government spending. This speech has common sense that any layman can understand. Watch it here. Here are some highlights.

“You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt.”

Why don’t liberals acknowledge common sense like this? Hannan makes the point that when individuals are in debt, they reduce their spending. Its kindergarten math, but politicians are amazingly skilled at getting away with ignoring such simple logic.

I love that when it comes to the economy, inaction is completely unacceptable to a liberal, but when it comes to national security, inaction is 100% the right decision. This is the fundamental problem I have with liberals: this lack of concern with consistency. They just don’t care if they’re being disingenuous or ignoring facts and logic.

Liberals think that it is none of the government’s business if Middle-East dictators repeatedly break international laws for decades, increasing the likelihood of dangerous behavior by rogue governments as well as separate terrorist organizations. These same liberals think it is the government’s business, nay, its duty, to intervene in the financial concerns of individuals, infringing on the financial freedom of individual Americans and their businesses.

Our founding fathers worked their tails off to make sure that the American government could never get involved with private businesses. Liberal politicians, both Republican and Democrat, have exploited the ignorance of regular Americans to justify trespassing into areas of our freedom they have no business trespassing on. When there is a bubble in the stock market, it must deflate slowly or burst. Pretending you deserve the money you “lost” in the recent crash is misguided. The stock market never actually reached 14,000. That was a fake number. Politicians would have you believe that it is big business’s fault that you lost all those Dow Jones points. The reality is you never had them. They were a facade, and when you accept that, you will be able to move on from these commonly believed myths that big business ruins everything and government can solve it. The fact of the matter is America didn’t have as much money as it thought. So politicians want to solve that fact by spending more money. Its ridiculous.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

Oh, that’s just ridiculous! How could anyone want to do something like that?

From Reuters: Barack Obama announced that in order to help pay the huge tax bill he’s charging on Uncle Sam’s credit card, he’s gonna reduce the tax deduction that rich people get to claim when making charitable contributions. They used to be able to deduct 35% of their charitable donations: now they will only be able to deduct 28%. He actually accidentally supports the argument for a fair tax, but he supports both sides of an argument all the time. As you might expect, charity groups are worried this will decrease giving.

Obama’s response… “If it’s really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming that that shouldn’t be the determining factor as to whether you’re giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street.”

Mr. President, your assumptions are naive and irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what someone’s reason is for giving charity. The point of the tax credit is to create incentive to make charitable contributions. If you increase the cost of a charitable donation by one cent, you will decrease the amount of donations. Its just economics. Perhaps it won’t decrease very much, but to claim it won’t decrease is preposterous.

“It’s not going to cripple them. They’ll still be well-to-do,” he said.

When Obama says “them,” he is referring to rich people. You are certainly correct, Mr. President. You won’t and can’t cripple rich people by taxing them. Taxing rich people more doesn’t hurt rich people. It hurts anyone that rich people give their money to, like small businesses and CHARITIES. Barack Obama does not care if increasing taxes on the rich will decrease charitable contributions. Attacking the rich is more important to him.
It is obvious that Obama is relentless in his pursuit to attack the rich/productive members of society regardless of the casualties. Arguments by Charlie Gibson and others pointing out that increasing the capital gains tax will actually decrease federal tax revenue doesn’t penetrate the socialist ideology of Barack Obama. Allow me to remind you of their conversation:

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased.  The government took in more money.  And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.  So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair…

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not.  [emphasis added]

Here are the key points to pay attention to.

1. Gibson cites empirical evidence citing the downside to increasing capital gains tax. Obama responds by talking about how much money 50 people made. This shows that he thinks his job is to tax the rich, not optimize federal tax revenue.
2. Obama then points out that making money off the stock market allows rich people to pay a lower tax rate than secretaries. What this observation fails to point out is that doesn’t mean the rich person is paying a lower amount of tax: just a lower rate.
3. Obama says its not fair that 50 people are paying lower tax rates than secretaries. Not lower taxes: lower tax rates. What he’s saying is its unfair that some people are making more money off the stock market than others. Are the secretaries prevented from making money off the stock market? No. So the hedge fund managers must have some expertise that allows them to make money off the market that the secretaries do not have. That means that the only thing Obama could be saying is not fair is that one person is making more money than someone else. He believes equality means equal outcome, rather than equal opportunity.
4. Gibson reiterates the historical truths of capital gains tax changes. Our President, the most powerful man in the world, ostensibly the best candidate for that office in all of America, responds with the old “maybe, maybe not” argument.

This guy is dangerously ignorant. I take that back… I can’t be sure he’s ignorant. I can believe he’s aware of everything I’m arguing for. I don’t think he cares. He has formed conclusions based on ideology, and ideology trumps evidence in his mind. He may not be ignorant, but he certainly is dangerous. I’m not the first to say this, but I predict he will either be impeached for his incompetence, or lose in a Reagan-esque landslide in 2012. You can fool all of the people some of the time…

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

Al Gore’s standard speaking contract bans people with press badges from his public speaking events.

That’s right, the former Columbia journalism professor bans journalists from listening in. The so-called “consensus” science prophet seems only interested in perceived so-called consensus that advances what he wants to be advanced.

This is the same press that generally supports the theory of substantial man-made global warming. Why would Gore not allow them in to report on his inconvenient truth? So Gore dislikes the media, but the media love Gore. A commenter at Hotair.com astutely referred to this as battered-wife syndrome.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

You wanna be angry? Fine, but be logical with your anger. If you’re focused on being angry with AIG, its harder to be angry about the following B.S., which is exactly what Congress and Obama want.

• Stimulus bill earmarks $198 million to compensate Filipino World War II veterans for their service. Most don’t live in the U.S. Let me repeat that. ONE HUNDRED NINETY EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS FOR WORLD WAR TWO VETERANS WHO HAPPEN TO BE FILIPINO. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
• Non-emergency spending in stimulus: $100 million for security at upcoming political conventions. Hey, if its 700 billion, who’s gonna notice another $100 million?
• Stimulus bill gave Congress a pay raise. Democrats think rich people need to share the burden of tough economic times, unless those rich people work in Congress.
• Card check - removing anonymity from voting on unions will cause job loss
• AIG bonuses were explicitly allowed by Senator Dodd amendment
• President Obama started to propose a plan to make veterans pay their own health insurance (fortunately it failed)
• Obama is trying to cause a depression, not prevent one
• Obama budget deficit is 8.5% of our GDP: EU requires deficit be under 3%
• Obama’s war on trade. In pursuit of keeping American teamsters happy, the recent $410 billion earmark bill had a provision preventing some Mexican trucks from operating in the U.S. The result: Mexico has responded by placing tariffs on 90 U.S. exports. This will cost Americans a lot of money and jobs.

If you’re still angrier at AIG than you are at American politicians, then I have wasted my time. Please leave my site.

Due to a teleprompter malfunction, President Obama started to read the Irish Prime Minister’s speech. As a result, President Obama thanked President Obama for inviting everyone over.

What a friggin disaster. I know Sean Hannity INCESSANTLY complains about double-standards in the media, but don’t tell me this wouldn’t be front page of the NY Times if Bush had done this. Now that this joke is President, people will start to learn how disgustingly unqualified Barack Obama is to do anything, and that he even makes mistakes at what he’s ostensibly very good at: public speaking.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

I completely understand why liberals get mad when a corporation spends money on an expensive party. They hate rich people who make money from the strength of capitalism. The problem I have is when their partisan, class-envy nonsense permeates to normal people like you. Everyone is angry with Northern Trust for spending money on a golf event at a country club. Let me explains something to you.

Northern Trust received $1.6 billion from TARP. Subsequently, as they do every year, they hosted the Northern Trust Open, a professional golf event that raises millions for charity. I’m not even sure how much they even spend on the event, considering the Golf Channel and other TV stations fit a huge part of the logistical bill. Even if you assume they spent $10 million on the event, that is one half of one percent of the money given to them in the bailout. That $10 million is just the expenses for the event… I have no idea how much it made to hedge the expenses. $10 million is chump change… what can you do with $10 million? You could give 10,000 people $1000. Or 10 million people $1. $10 million isn’t a relevant topic when talking about stimulating the friggin American economy. This is small fish B.S.
The most humorous part is the fake disgust of lawmakers in Washington:

“This behavior demonstrates extraordinary levels of irresponsibility and arrogance,” wrote Frank

Yes, that’s right. Barney Fwank [sic] is criticizing someone for irresponsibility and arrogance. Reminds me of an old saying involving a pot and a kettle. That’s like Bill Clinton criticizing John Edwards for cheating on his wife. John Kerry will introduce a bill to prevent “extravagant spending practices of U.S. banks.”

You morons out there that constantly criticize big business for its behavior need to start directing your anger at big government. Politicians like Barney Fwank and John Kerry ROUTINELY spend irresponsibly, arrogantly, and extravagantly. I think Frank should be charged with sedition. He’s a disgusting, dishonest excuse for an American.

I find this quote to be representative of illogical liberalism…from a Thomas Friedman op-ed:
“I wake up every morning hoping to read this story: “President Obama announced today that he had invited the country’s 20 leading bankers, 20 leading industrialists, 20 top market economists and the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate to join him and his team at Camp David. ‘We will not come down from the mountain until we have forged a common, transparent strategy for getting us out of this banking crisis,’ the president said, as he boarded his helicopter.” ”

Sounds nice, right? Read it more carefully… Friedman says every day he hopes Obama will announce something. He hopes Obama announces that he’s gonna get a bunch of people together and “forge” a strategy. Kumbayah nonsense.
Mr. Friedman, your time would better be spent hoping that you wake up one morning to the announcement that the banking crisis is OVER. Not being worked on. Not being worried about. OVER. SOLVED. Liberals are so obsessed with the appearance of trying to do good things. Forget that! GET IT DONE. I’m sure Mr. Friedman does look forward to the crisis being over, but he decided to write that he hopes Obama will try, instead of do.
Me personally, I wake up every morning hoping to hear this announcement:

The government has decided to leave the financial markets alone. President Obama announced today, “It has come to my attention that I and my friends in Congress don’t know a fucking thing about economics. My fellow Americans, we are politicians: not economists. We don’t know the first fucking thing about the economy, and in all likelihood, our intervention is making the problem worse. We especially know nothing about making cars or running businesses, yet it is politically advantageous to pretend we do. Therefore, I have decided to stop meddling in things that are bigger than me or this government.”

If wishing the President to fail is so bad, why do we have checks and balances? Everyone is so angry that people like Rush Limbaugh would dare say they want the President to fail. That is what checks and balances are for: ensuring the executive branch fails when it is WRONG. Wikipedia covers it nicely:
“Separation of powers is a political doctrine under which the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are kept distinct, to prevent abuse of power.”

Wanting Obama to always succeed is not democracy. That thought-process describes a monarchy. Let’s just get rid of congress and courts… let Obama handle it however he wants, and if you hope he fails, that’s treason. This is insanity.

If Obama is wrong, it is America’s responsibility to ensure he fails. The only reason Democrats are focusing on Rush’s comments is political posturing. Making Republicans look anti-American by selling the nonsense that Obama IS America. Obama isn’t America’s king. The President is only one, albeit enormously important, part of the power structure of our republic.

I think the wording of a poll question is critical to really understanding the “I want the President to fail” debate. Do you want the President to fail in general, or do you want policies you disagree with to fail? Most partisan invertebrates answer this question with blind emotion, and I reserve a special place in hell for these morons. President Clinton passed welfare reform. Although I strongly dislike him in general, I did not want him to fail at doing that simply because he’s a poopy head.
Regardless, this hypocritical outrage at Rush Limbaugh for wanting Obama to fail is ridiculous. In August of 2006, a Patterico poll found that 51% of Democrats did not want Bush to succeed. The majority of these 51% simply hate George W. Bush, and failure increased the chances of a Democrat in 2008. They are entitled to do so, but don’t shower us with all this outrage that you liberals didn’t have in 2006. Its amazing to see the idiotic, ignorant comments on sites like Huffington Post:

Al Eisele: The Republican Party, America’s second oldest political party and a force in American politics and government since the time of Abraham Lincoln, died on March 1. It was 155 years old.

James Moore: The more people that hear Limbaugh articulate his disdain for the success of America the better will be the country’s chances of rejecting his hateful ideology and getting back on the path to prosperity.

Jill Brooke: Who were the undisputed champs of CPAC? Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh — two unmarried people without any children.

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Limbaugh said on numerous occasions that America wanted to fail, yet Moore claims Limbaugh has “disdain for the success of America.” Flat-out, shameless liar. Mr. Eisele WISHES from the depths of his soul that the Republican party died as a result of Rush’s speech, but wishful thinking will get him nowhere. Jill Brooke flat out changed the subject, showing that her opinion is as worthless as an Obama campaign promise. Check out that link and see more comments in a substance vacuum from scholars like Alec Baldwin and Michael Moore.
Rush has said on numerous occasions that he is specifically referring to the liberal/socialist policies that Obama is putting into place and planning for the future. That is what he wants to fail: not America. Getting mad at Limbaugh without addressing the substance of his argument is intellectually cowardly. “Us vs. Them” bullshit is getting worse everyday; I am so sick of it.

If you want either President to fail at everything, you are an idiot. Please stop voting and reproducing; you are too dumb to live. If you want them to fail at doing specific things that you ideologically disagree with, you are normal.  Get the facts before you form so-called “strong” opinions.