mlah The “culture” that has evolved here isn’t conducive to sissies

October 26, 2008

Born in the USA

Filed under: Politics — mlah @ 1:56 am

Hot bikini chicks
i was.

so, i got forwarded this little youtube clip by a small  business owner who is a little livid at the prospect of an obama presidency. he startes out trying to sell cigars, and then pulls a dennis miller and goes off on a rant.

in his rant, he claims that barack obama was not even born in the usa.  he says that obama’s family members previously claimed barack was born in kenya.

i have never heard any of this, but am going to look into it.

14 Comments »

  1. Yup….this isn’t news (in the sense that it’s “New”). A guy actually filed suit against BHO stating he was ineligible for the presidency due to him being foriegn born. Freakin’ judge threw it out and in his opinion, stated that no “injury” was proven that would warrant the case to go forward. I guess not complying with the constitution isn’t injurious. Hopefully they’ll go to appeal, not like it will make any difference, nobody in the MSM will take it seriously. That being said, I’m calling it now: McCain’s victory will be a landslide.
    Rob

    Comment by Rob — October 27, 2008 @ 2:00 pm

  2. That One has never proved his birth citizenship — the most basic tenet of eligibility for the Presidency as far as the Constitution is concerned. Yet the Democrats have launched bombs against McCain because — get this — he was born OUTSIDE the U.S. (in the Panama Canal Zone) while his father was serving there in the U.S. Navy. That is the Democrat response to questions about Obama’s birth citizenship.

    Here is the story — about McCain, since That One is beyond question:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html

    Comment by yup — October 27, 2008 @ 8:53 pm

  3. That dude is muy loco. Terrorists paid for Harvard, huh? Excuse him while he goes to beat up his wife now…

    I knew the election was over when Palin started in on Mlah’s favorite meme of Socialism. Oh, wait. More business executives have given Obama money than McCain: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-27-prez-money_N.htm

    Y’all gotta get a grip.

    Comment by Gus — October 28, 2008 @ 1:10 am

  4. get a grip? let me see if i understand you correctly gus.

    mccain is in bed with big business because all the cronies work for him? wait, wait.

    how much money have those big business cronies given to “the chosen one”? who is the ‘one’ really in bed with big bussiness? why exactly ARE those big business cronies giving money to “the one”? praytell?

    and as for evidence that business liking you, means you ain’t socialist…. hitler was popular as hell with big business prior to the annointing. don’t believe me? read rise and fall of the third reich by william shirer.

    Comment by mlah — October 28, 2008 @ 6:06 pm

  5. for a second I thought you wrote “William Shatner”. Mlah….

    Comment by yup — October 28, 2008 @ 6:57 pm

  6. “don’t believe me?”
    I don’t believe you when you say Hitler was a socialist. We’ve been thru this too many times already and you’ve never actually had a word to say about H’s economic policies– whereas there is plenty of proof that he hated communists.

    And I don’t believe you when you suggest Obama is a socialist.

    Here is Palin the Socialist: “And Alaska we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

    Hahaha, assholes. You are going down so hard.

    Comment by Gus — October 31, 2008 @ 2:20 am

  7. hahaha asshole.

    you forgot the new collective. WE are going down so hard. you think obama has something in his pocket for you?

    Comment by mlah — November 2, 2008 @ 11:43 am

  8. “Tax cuts were also out of the question because he believed they led to less revenue not more growth.”

    “along with massive road building, subsidies to the auto industry, lots more bureaucrats to enforce all the new controls and regulations, and bribes to women to get married and stop working.”

    “attributing the food shortages to Hitler’s centralized agricultural policy, which had virtually eliminated food imports while implementing government controls. ”

    “in October 1935 Price Commissioner Carl Goerdeler sent Hitler…”a devastating analysis of Germany’s economic position.” According to Kershaw, Goerdeler “favored a return to market economy, a renewed emphasis upon exports, and a corresponding reduction in the rearmament drive””

    That was from a review by Michael McMenamin of the book “Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris, by Ian Kershaw http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/nazi.htm

    So let’s just see here: Hitler instituted centralized controls over economic production, erasing ties to the traditional market economy. He subsidized preferred market sectors, and spent massive amounts of government funding for infrastructure projects. He instituted social welfare to artificially lower the unemployment numbers and make the unemployed less prone to take to the streets. He bloated the government ranks with additional bureaucrats in order to oversee the intrusive government controls he placed on industry. He refused to cut the tax rates because he could not fathom the benefits of lower government intrusion in the markets, and believed that doing so would simply reduce the amount of money he could spend.

    Yup, sure sounds like a socialist.

    Comment by yup — November 2, 2008 @ 10:54 pm

  9. Now Gus, I’ll turn to your favorite source of information: Wikipedia.

    “Under Goering imports were slashed. Wages and prices were controlled—under penalty of being sent to a concentration camp. Dividends were restricted to six percent on book capital. And strategic goals to be reached at all costs (much like Soviet planning) were declared: the construction of synthetic rubber plants, more steel plants, automatic textile factories.

    While the strict state intervention into the economy, and the massive rearmament policy, almost led to full employment during the 1930s (statistics didn’t include non-citizens or women), real wages in Germany dropped by roughly 25% between 1933 and 1938….In place of ordinary profit incentive to guide investment, investment was guided through regulation to accord with needs of the State. Government financing eventually came to dominate the investment process, which the proportion of private securities issued falling from over half of the total in 1933 and 1934 to approximately 10 percent in 1935-1938. Heavy taxes on profits limited self-financing of firms. The largest firms were mostly exempt from taxes on profits, however government control of these were extensive enough to leave “only the shell of private ownership.”

    The war time economy of Nazi Germany can effectively neither be described as a free market economy nor as centrally planned. In the words of Richard Overy: “The Germany economy fell between two stools. It was not enough of a command economy to do what the Soviet system could do; yet it was not capitalist enough to rely, as America did, on the recruitment of private enterprise.””

    So, the German economy under Hitler was not free-market based. However, it was not as tightly controlled as the Communist economy of the Soviet Union. Still sounds like Socialism to me!

    Comment by yup — November 2, 2008 @ 10:59 pm

  10. And Gus, before you get on the “labor union” issue and how Hitler’s treatment of the working man shows he was not a Socialist — Hitler indeed banned them — take this little nugget from Wikipedia:

    “Unlike labor unions in the West, Soviet trade unions were, in fact, actually governmental organizations whose chief aim was not to represent workers but to further the goals of management, government, and the CPSU. As such, they were partners of management in attempting to promote labor discipline, worker morale, and productivity.”

    Banned labor unions versus making them a tool of government policy enforcement. Hmmm. The whole idea of unions was ultimately destroyed by the respective Socialist and Communist governments.

    Comment by yup — November 2, 2008 @ 11:29 pm

  11. So let’s just see here:

    “Tax cuts were also out of the question…”
    Obama has a great package of tax cuts, so that doesn’t apply.

    “along with massive road building, subsidies to the auto industry, lots more bureaucrats to enforce all the new controls and regulations, and bribes to women to get married and stop working.”

    Many Republican economists are calling for massive infrastructure projects. Bush just gave auto companies a hunk of cash, with more to come. It remains to be seen how much O will increase the bureaucracy– every sane person agrees that more financial regulation is inevitable after W starved the SEC. O sure ain’t gonna keep women barefoot ‘n pregnant.

    “centralized agricultural policy”
    Ain’t gonna happen w/ O.

    “He [Hitler] subsidized preferred market sectors”

    House Republican leader John Boehner… has proposed measures including incentives for the U.S. energy sector

    http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSTRE4A12E020081102

    “real wages in Germany dropped by roughly 25% between 1933 and 1938”

    Average hourly real wages [in the US] for both college and high school graduates actually fell between 2000 and 2005

    (article from 2006)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5303590.stm

    “The largest firms were mostly exempt from taxes on profits”
    That’s straight Bush & McCain.

    “Banned labor unions versus making them a tool of government policy enforcement.”
    Unions’ status as arms of the State in the USSR had nothing to with his distaste for them. Let’s ask Adolph himself! Here are his ideas from Mein Kampf (1922):

    For a trade-union movement which sees its mission only in competition with the Marxist unions would be worse than none at all. It must declare war on the Marxist union, not only as an organization, but above all as an idea. In the Marxist union it must strike down the herald of the class struggle and the class idea and in its stead must become the protector of the occupational interests of German citizens.

    http://www.crusader.net/texts/mk/mkv2ch12.html

    And putting his ideas into play in 1933:

    Hitler met with some right-wing industrialists, reassuring them of his respect for private property. He told them that democracy led to socialism and that he would curb socialism and the socialist-led labor unions. The industrialists liked what Hitler told them, and, in January 1933, Hindenburg gave power to Hitler and his new coalition…

    http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm

    The fact remains that his econ policies are not what we remember him for (and which provides the shock of your & Mlah’s comparison). There have been (and are) many socialist-leaning countries/leaders who have not been tempted to slaughter all the Jews in sight. Duh.

    Comment by Gus — November 4, 2008 @ 5:39 am

  12. Gus, you are mixing social policy (the slaughter of the ‘undesirables’) with economic policy. You asked about economic policy. NOT social policy. Tool.

    And ever since the 1930s — under Roosevelt — this country has been moving toward the socialism. Johnson’s policies furthered Roosevelt’s. Clinton pushed a “social equality” platform by forcing banks to loan money to people who could not afford to pay it back on the basis of ensuring their “civil rights.” Every time conservatives have tried to curb these in-place social programs, they have been thwarted. Obama is promising sweeping socialist changes. You cannot deny that, however much you try by lying.

    Comment by yup — November 4, 2008 @ 6:57 pm

  13. Yup: “Gus, you are mixing social policy (the slaughter of the ‘undesirables’) with economic policy. You asked about economic policy. NOT social policy. Tool.”
    Mlah has mixed the 2 by implication every time he’s brought up his stoopid argument about Hitler being a socialist, Black & Decker.

    “Every time conservatives have tried to curb these in-place social programs, they have been thwarted.”
    By whom? By Democrats sometimes, but also by their own constituents! It is part of our national DNA at this point– it’s only a matter of greater or lesser socialistic policy. Admit it.
    What is your medical, life or auto insurance policy except a smaller-than-national pool of risk? Not to mention all the gov’t programs that you happen to agree with– the DoD, police, justice system, roads, etc. are all kinds of socialized “insurance policies”. Get off your high horse.
    Don’t like it? Then put a “permanent Republican majority” in place. Oops– you already tried that. How’s it working out for ya? Enjoy your years in the wilderness! Don’t forget to write!

    Comment by Gus — November 13, 2008 @ 3:00 am

  14. Gus, I am laughing at you. You don’t realize what you’ve been asking for. I already have a government-managed health care plan. Compared to the private health care I’ve had in the past, it sucks. Wait lists that go on forever, surgeries recommended as medically necessary by a half dozen doctors denied by the bureaucrats who run it. It’s coming soon to your life, now Gus. I hope you enjoy it.

    Maybe you could go to Canada or the UK for better health care. Oh wait, they already flee here to get better than their own national health care provides them. Oh well, there’s always Mexico….

    As for these other things you list. Think about it.

    DOD: handles the National Defense, which is a Constitutional function of the Federal Government.

    Justice system: a Constitutional function of the Federal Government.

    Roads: a function of local governments or private enterprise EXCEPT for the National Defense Highway System (which falls under National Defense, a Constitutional function of the Federal Government, by allowing military forces to be road-marched around the country as needed. Military logistics, by the way, is also a reason for Federal Government funds to be expended to keep rail and air services viable. For that matter, it was the underlying reason that the Reagan Administration allowed Chrysler, that grand old maker of tanks and military transport systems, to be bailed out. It’s also an underlying reason for the current bailout of the U.S. auto makers. Would YOU like to rely on Japanese, Korean, German or Chinese companies to build our military vehicles? Oh that’s right. War is not the answer. We can safely kill our military machine with no ill effects, because people will love us like squishy teddy bears, at least once The One is in office).

    These other socialized “insurance policies” of which you speak? Where are they enumerated in the Constitution?

    Oh, that’s right. You believe the Constitution is simply a living document which changes with the mores of the culture. If most people want bread and circuses, then by golly, we’ll make that a right under the Constitution as well!

    And you’ve made my point about the whole socialization of our society. Yes, the Dems thwarted the conservatives when it came to curbing government social programs. Including, of course, Bush and McCain when they called for regulating the amount of subprime loans the government, through Fannie and Freddie, was guaranteeing. Which was a policy put in place by THE DEMOCRATS in the late 1990s. (Yup, that’s right. The current economic crisis was spurred by Democrat social policies.)

    But you also note that “it is part of our national DNA at this point” — the Social Security network put in place by the likes of Roosevelt and Johnson have become permanent fixtures in our society. Here is my whole complaint with this: Once in place, these programs cannot be dismantled!!!

    But the damned politicians ignore the debts accumulating in those programs and blithely promise ever more spending to make constituents happy and buy votes. Do you HONESTLY ever expect to see anything come from your Social Security contributions when you retire in 20 years? Do you honestly expect Medicare to pay for your Viagra the way so many Baby Boomers do? Will the government care for you throughout your statistically long retirement years just because of these programs? That’s exactly what millions of Boomers and their children expect. We have a negative national savings rate, choose not to buy private insurance, and expect the Federal Government to pick up the tab for any and all consequences.

    Republicans lost their ideals and became politicians grubbing for votes. How else could they even hope to compete against their Democrat opponents, who promise the moon? Fiscal conservatism doesn’t sell as well to voters as do promises of bread and circuses.

    Tell me Gus. You are entering your peak earnings years. How many workers like you support how many retirees accepting government largesse? Are you willing to work until age 70? Canada was ready to raise the national retirement age to 70, with no benefits accruing prior to that age. My children will support many more retirees than you or I ever will. It’s sad really. We are robbing the next generations of their own fiscal comfort in order to pay for the excesses of today. But let’s just ignore that and order another round of Government spending programs for “the masses.”

    Comment by yup — November 13, 2008 @ 7:33 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress