March 11, 2009
February 16, 2009
Serial Twit
caltechgirl it's not about IDEOLOGY, you fucking turd it's about breaking poor people's backs. Gas goes up $0.14/ gallon INSTANTLY
caltechgirl Sales tax OVER 10%, and then increases in income tax and car fees. Do you want people to MOVE OUT FASTER?
caltechgirl I wish I hated my house and I could afford to sell it. I'd leave CA tomorrow.
caltechgirl I can't afford to stay.
caltechgirl FTR, the fucking turd in question was some stupid ass liberal state senator who evidently only represents RICH PEOPLE
caltechgirl I
think if you find yourself in a hole this deep, the first question you
should be asking is not how do we fill the hole, but rather...
caltechgirl ... how did we get here? What are the bad decisions that led us here. And then don't repeat them.
caltechgirl Because you can only blame "the economy" so much.
caltechgirl I
thought the democrats were the champions of poor people. I guess that's
true only until they need them to bear the brunt of their mistakes.
The above was in response to some opportunist idiot on the TV taking advantage of the camera in his face to make the budget mess all about Democrats vs. Republicans.
That's just ignorant. What it's about is how much are we going to take and who's listening. Have you heard the man-on-the street interviews in the media? NO ONE wants you to solve the problem by choking us to death with taxes. NO ONE. Yes, some tax increases are necessary, but how are we spending the money? Isn't there something that can be done without shoving it, quite literally, on to the backs of your constituents?
I've heard both sides point out that this economy is based on spending. Great. Explain to me, then, how people can get the economy going by spending when it costs them more NOT ONLY to buy items, but also TO GET TO THE STORE. And more of their income goes back to the state to begin with. These people are barely spending, and you're threatening to put a BIGGER hurt on their wallet?
You don't improve this state by taking money from people. You encourage them to give the state more than you would take by giving them incentives to buy.
As much as I hate the sheer size of the "porkulus" package that the President will sign tomorrow, I have to point out that it is based on INCENTIVES. And maybe that's why people were willing to pass it. Because the help is obvious. It's money going to people. Not coming out of their pockets. At least not today.
Posted by: caltechgirl at
11:34 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Because the help is obvious.
Actually, I would beg to differ.Money going to people has to come from somewhere. Since the government produces nothing, that money comes from other people. This is unlikely, on the whole, to be of any help, as we're rapidly approaching the point where
1) There aren't enough people to soak anymore
2) China grows uneasy enough with our nation's debt that they stop lending, or start calling some of their markers due.
Economic downturns occur. I would posit that whatever DC does is likely to lengthen and exacerbate the recovery. I base that opinion on empirical evidence from the past.
Is there spending in the bill that I support? Sure. Roads, bridges and other infrastructure ( I work in power generation) in this country are antiquated and should be updated or replaced. Unfortunately, these needs existed before, but they aren't really vote buyers, which is why things like the Minnesota bridge collapse happen.
Posted by: physics geek at February 17, 2009 09:28 AM (MT22W)
2
I thought the democrats were the champions of poor people.
They are. That's why they have created so many of them by taking as many jobs, homes, and as much money as they away from the middle class and the rich. The more poor, the more power they gain. And that is what they're after, isn't it?
Posted by: DCE at February 17, 2009 07:26 PM (bzJcf)
3
Problem is not that there is not enough money..there is just too much spending by governments...governments at all levels. And since governments NEVER produce anything it is always someone else's money that governments spend.
The only way to beat them is to quit producing anymore than it takes to live. When there is no one left to loot they will have to feed off each other and maybe that will be the end of them
Posted by: GUYK at February 19, 2009 11:59 AM (uyoGg)
4
I downtown with you wanting to get the fuck out of CA. Too bad Big Sur is on the Left coast instead of the Right.
Posted by: Sam at February 20, 2009 04:55 AM (kN++T)
Posted by: 货架、 at March 26, 2009 06:14 AM (8j21L)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 04, 2009
A New Hunt for the Nuge
Ted Nugent is hunting a new animal these days,
The Porkasaurus!
I'm on the track of one, a bigger more dangerous critter than I've ever hunted before: the Obama-Pelosi Porkosaurus.
The Porkosaurus is plenty dangerous by itself. It subsidizes unemployment by increasing unemployment benefits. And, as the man said, when you subsidize something you get more of it. It doesn't spend anything -- not one thin dime -- on the one thing that economists say is guaranteed to stimulate the economy, defense spending. And its whole purpose is to feed Fedzilla and make it grow even bigger, swallowing our economy whole.
Click over and read the rest. Uncle Ted has some interesting ideas about stalking the beast and starving it to death.
If you've never read Ted before, you're in for a treat.
Posted by: caltechgirl at
08:24 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.
1
how exactly is defense spending "guaranteed to stimulate the economy"?
and I'm sorry, but unemployment benefits can stimulate the economy. If the unemployed don't get benefits, they have no money to spend. If they get benefits, they have money to spend, this money, in turn gets spent buying things, which means production of more things, transportation of more things, and the sale of more things - all of which mean jobs. More jobs means fewer people needing unemployment. But in the here and now, with unemployment close to double what it has been for the last 16 years, unemployment benefits aren't a bad thing.
Posted by: KG at February 04, 2009 09:28 AM (jjrBh)
2
Manual Trackback™
But yeah, I'm with KG on the defense spending part. It's not a stimulus for the economy.
I don't think the unemployment benefits are much of a stimulus either, though. Maybe some but not a lot. The problem is that expanded benefits have to be paid from tax money which also could have stimulated the economy had it remained in private hands instead of being filtered through an expensive bureaucracy. I'm all for cushioning the blow from job loss but there are limits to how much we can and should expand benefits.
Posted by: Ken S, Fifth String on the Banjo of Life at February 06, 2009 06:46 AM (PvqFn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 21, 2009
Kiss Me, I'm Irish
Scots-Irish. But I digress. Seems O'bama is too. In fact, according to the Corrigans, there's no one as Irish as Barack O'bama. I thought this was hilarious.
h/t the always awesome Helen who is getting pretty tired of hearing this in the UK
Posted by: caltechgirl at
11:47 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I know it should seem un-PC, but it's actually ok and very funny. It's true, I'm kinda over it, but I laughed when I first heard it.
Posted by: Helen at January 22, 2009 03:43 AM (LewRx)
Posted by: Jenn at January 22, 2009 02:11 PM (QQLml)
3
Catchy little tune isn't it. I could easily see it being overdone just because of that. LOL.
Posted by: Teresa at January 26, 2009 12:38 PM (ybEr8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Like Cheese on Chinese Food
Republican rhetoric coming from The One, that is:
I'm not a big fan of Jon Stewart, and I often think he's just plain unfunny. But when he nails it, he nails it. This made me laugh. A lot.
Thanks to my afternoon Therapy Pool pals (Hi Stan!) for telling me to find the clip!
Posted by: caltechgirl at
11:30 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 4 kb.
1
I think between stuff like this and Biden's loose-cannon mouth (see: Chief Justice jokes, lame), there will be more quality comedy bits for Righties over the next 4 years.
Posted by: Ben at January 22, 2009 11:59 PM (U6sYX)
2
"When Obama says these thing, I don´t think he really means it. And that gives me hope."
I think Obama really doesn´t mean it, but why would that give anyone but a selfsatisfied millionaire clown hope?
Posted by: El Gordo at February 02, 2009 05:00 AM (3xGG6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 20, 2009
My own thoughts
Just a few reflections on the Inauguration...
Funniest moment? Heard on C-Span open mike, Joe Biden arriving at the top of the stairs to walk down to the main platform: "Well, I made it."
Least expected moment? Rick Warren's prayer. I am not a fan of public prayer. For two reasons. One, prayer is (according to scripture) to be a personal, secret act. Two, public praying tends to become a sideshow: quoting, telling God all kinds of shit he already knows, showboating by the pray-er. You know what I mean. Warren's prayer followed a more humble structure: he praised God's greatness, he humbled himself, he asked for intercesion, and ended with the Lord's Prayer. Nice, actually.
Best moment? The Williams Quartet with YoYo Ma and Itzak Perlman. Amazing. And yes, I am a sucker for both Ma and Perlman. Especially Perlman, whose playing regularly moves me to tears.
Most surreal moment: Again, captured by the C-Span open mike: At the end of Obama's oath, the crowd began chanting "CHANGE!" a la Randy Marsh.
By the time The One spoke, I was getting sleepy. I noted that the first half of the speech sounded like a Republican (personal responsibility, huh?). And then I crashed.
I could have done without Aretha. Hang it up sister. Your voice is going away, as it does to all divas at your age. Let us remember you at your finest. She did have a killer hat on, though.
Finally, poor Chief Justice. His nerves got the best of him and he flubbed the Oath. Here's hoping he gets it right in four years.
What say you?
Posted by: caltechgirl at
12:36 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I didn't watch. I am a head-burying ostrich
Also, I'm at work.
Posted by: Ken S, Fifth String on the Banjo of Life at January 20, 2009 01:21 PM (PvqFn)
2
I had to work and didn't watch. Then again I wouldn't have watched even I wasn't working. I've never watched one in the past and really, I had no desire to start now.
Posted by: Contagion at January 20, 2009 04:06 PM (Jfxjt)
3
I hadn't planned to watch, but my new bosses had the tv on the entire day, and invited me to come watch the inauguration. So, despite what I said about it, apparently you COULD pay me to watch.
I'm pissed to now know the names of both daughters. My goal for the next 4 was to never know their names. Thanks to Warren praying their names, I know them. Grrrr.
I loved Aretha's hat, not her song.
Loved Yo Yo Ma and Itzak Pearlman! My bosses had no clue who they were as I gushed. We're from very different backgrounds.
Posted by: wRitErsbLock at January 20, 2009 07:12 PM (0Pi1o)
4
Just tell me what's NOT racist about "when white will embrace what is right."
Seriously.
Posted by: caltechgirl at January 20, 2009 11:30 PM (IfXtw)
5
Ah, I see. I thought originally you were talking about the color referencing -- I didn't realize you took offense only about the comment about white people. Yeah, that wasn't very PC, but I think you're personalizing it. It was said in hyperbole, referencing a long history of one ethnic group having power and control and not always having moral justification. It would be absurd if he meant that all white people today are bigoted racists. In fact, the text of that part of the benediction was about exercising racial caution.
I didn't feel it was racist, but I guess I can see how some people would be sensitive to it -- my white husband didn't get offended and neither did most of my other white friends, as they focused on the spirit of what he said.
But I am surprised that you would take offense to it, as then it would make a lot of things that you, your DH, and I have said into non-PC/racist stuff and certainly on our blogs.
Posted by: SBC at January 21, 2009 11:39 AM (L2+uQ)
6
i hated it all. the street fair mentality; what the moonbats did to president bush when he came in; michelle's clothes; lowery and his hateful self; even aretha's voice was disappointing. (i did like her hat somewhat though... very spiffy)
rick warren i didn't mind too much. i know michelle's feet were positively bleeding after walking in the parade --- those heels looked like they were pinching bigtime.
mostly, i hated the idea that W wasn't in the white house anymore. damn.
Posted by: kate at January 21, 2009 11:05 PM (8rwgl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
I am not among the head-burying ostriches
Yes, I am going to watch the festivities tomorrow.
I am going to watch the O-bots cheer as their messiah of the new raises his right hand and takes the same oath George Washington did, using the bible of Abraham Lincoln.
Folks, like it or not this is our new President. Hail the peaceful transition of power so rare elsewhere, and common enough here that we take it for granted, don't ignore it like it will go away.
It's not going away for four more years. I for one can't hold my breath that long under the sand.
I am going to watch and rant and yell obscenities at the TV, at the idiots who don't remember the past as they bow down and worship The One. I am also going to cheer the new President and enjoy the presentations of the Inaugural Parade.
Because really folks, this is it. It's our history, like it or not, and we can be there for it, or we can pretend it didn't happen. I'm of the opinion that the revolution WILL be televised. And YouTubed. And I'd prefer to be able to talk about it firsthand anyway.
I don't blame those of you on media blackout. I get it. I feel you. But I just can't help but think it's another form of denial. And I can't be in denial for 4 more years.
Posted by: caltechgirl at
12:22 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm one of those on blackout. And yes, I'm embracing my denial... but it won't last long, trust me.
Posted by: pam at January 20, 2009 09:34 AM (l6NIn)
2
Your pictures are amazing!
I also fell in love with Morocco and now live in Marrakech. Please feel free to visit my website:
Morocco Property
Wishing you all the best
Salim
Posted by: Salim Arkadan at January 21, 2009 05:08 PM (ddgTx)
3
I was with you - watched it all... Good grief. I think I said - "holy crap we're fucked!" 3 times... Yeesh...
Posted by: Richmond at January 21, 2009 05:59 PM (77JrH)
4
I am all about fairness. I didn't watch Bush or any other president's inauguration. Plus, I have to work to pay my taxes!
Posted by: Amy at January 22, 2009 03:32 AM (R8Y8+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 18, 2009
The Ghost of White House Past
If the Presidential fraternity in the sky could advise Barack Obama they'd send...
Richard Nixon.
"Honestly," Nixon began, "there are a number of racists among the group. I am not one of them. Slavery was and racism is the great moral failing of America. I don't want to see you fail."
Nixon appeared to take a deep breath and he turned away from Obama and looked out the window towards the Washington Monument. "I don't want to see you fail. I failed because of my own hubris. My failings were avoidable if I hadn't been blind to what I was doing. You and I became president at a unique time in America's history. Deeply unpopular wars were underway abroad. Deep discord infected everything at home. I had a chance for greatness. You have a chance for greatness. You and I share times more similar than you think. I can help you if you want my help. If you don't... Well, I can go back and leave you be."
Hop over to
Naked Villainy and read the rest. Presidential heaven appears to be an awfully interesting place....
Posted by: caltechgirl at
09:10 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.
47kb generated in CPU 0.0453, elapsed 0.1016 seconds.
76 queries taking 0.0815 seconds, 169 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
