“You know what? Rich people – I’m sure you’d agree with this – actually do pay the freight in this country. I just saw these statistics, I mean, something like 70 percent. And here in California, I just want to say liberals – you could actually lose me. It’s outrageous what we’re paying – over 50 percent. I’m willing to pay my share, but yeah, it’s ridiculous.”
Bill Maher, Obama supporter, March 15 2013
Category Archives: big government
“Michelle Obama’s posterior again the subject of a public rant” at the Washington Post
The sexists and racists at the Washington Post – and elsewhere – seem to be missing the point and projecting their own racism and sexism on others. No one cares about Michelle Obama’s race. People comment because you have a fat person who is LECTURING the rest of us on healthy eating. Look at Michelle Obama’s height and weight, calculate her BMI and tell us she is not “overweight” or “obese”.
Would the Washington Post have an article about Chris Christie or Ted Kennedy’s behind? No. Clear sexism at work.
The Washington Post’s preoccupation with race makes one wonder what their issue with skin color is.
Would the same be said about others? Yes, if Honey Boo Boo’s mom was lecturing the country on our food choices, people would say the same thing. If Chris Christie was telling people to eat better while still packing on the pounds, people would say the same thing.
Hypocrisy is lecturing the country on good eating habits while doing the opposite.
ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Orwell
It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak.
The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle. After the invention of the flintlock, and before the invention of the percussion cap, the musket was a fairly efficient weapon, and at the same time so simple that it could be produced almost anywhere. Its combination of qualities made possible the success of the American and French revolutions, and made a popular insurrection a more serious business than it could be in our own day. After the musket came the breech-loading rifle. This was a comparatively complex thing, but it could still be produced in scores of countries, and it was cheap, easily smuggled and economical of ammunition. Even the most backward nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another, so that Boers, Bulgars, Abyssinians, Moroccans — even Tibetans — could put up a fight for their independence, sometimes with success. But thereafter every development in military technique has favoured the State as against the individual, and the industrialised country as against the backward one. There are fewer and fewer foci of power. Already, in 1939, there were only five states capable of waging war on the grand scale, and now there are only three — ultimately, perhaps, only two. This trend has been obvious for years, and was pointed out by a few observers even before 1914. The one thing that might reverse it is the discovery of a weapon — or, to put it more broadly, of a method of fighting — not dependent on huge concentrations of industrial plant.
George Orwell
What government is good at is: collecting taxes, taking away our freedoms, and killing people. It’s not good at much else. ~ Tom Clancy
What government is good at is: collecting taxes, taking away our freedoms, and killing people. It’s not good at much else. ~ Tom Clancy
I am leaving because you consider that success, creation, talent, anything different, must be punished.
“I am leaving because you consider that success, creation, talent, anything different, must be punished.”
Gerard Depardieu, in an open letter to French prime minister Jean-Marc Ayrault , December 16, 2012
I don’t care what the majority voted to do, they don’t have a right to steal my money just because they vote for it
First of all, I’m in the top two percent. Right now, I’m paying 45% of my total income in income taxes, both to the state of Connecticut and to the federal government, and if you take the 3% Medicare tax. After the tax hikes go into effect next year, more than half — more than half of my total income is going to go to the government. You tell me, what’s fair about that when medieval serfs pay 25%, I’m paying half? I don’t care what the majority voted to do, they don’t have a right to steal my money just because they vote for it. ..You know what the wealthy are going to do? They’re going to invest more abroad, they’re not going to work as hard, they’re not going to pay as much in taxes, they’re not going to employ as many people. They’re employees are going to pay all the taxes. Peter Schiff, December 10, 2012
Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.
“Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.”
-Vladimir Lenin
“Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.” – Vladimir Lenin
“Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.” – Vladimir Lenin
As long as you think we have to police the world and run this welfare state, all we will argue about is who will get the loot.
“As long as you think we have to police the world and run this welfare state, all we will argue about is who will get the loot.” Ron Paul, November 8, 2012
Selling your liberty for a free phone and birth control
A friend now says that those who voted for President Obama are no longer welcome at their house. She doesn’t believe in supporting those who would sell their (and our) freedom for a free phone and free birth control. She doesn’t believe in supporting those that believe that their need gives them the right to force someone else to provide for them. She knows that if she takes money directly from someone’s pocket, it is theft, whereas if the President does it, it is supposed to be admirable, but is not. She knows it is not charity if it is someone else’s money. She knows that it is racist to vote for someone because of his skin color. She knows that nothing is free, not even health care – someone has to provide it. She knows that the quest for power in Washington knows no bounds.
As much as possible she intends to support those people and businesses that support liberty, and avoid those that do not. She intends to support employees who value their freedom and let those who do not go. She knows that freedom is the best path to prosperity and the only moral path.
In short, she believes in freedom and equality for everyone and is taking steps in her life to attest to that. Her advice for the Republican Party is to adopt the slogan “We’ll stay out of your pocketbooks, and out of your bedroom.” She’ll support the Constitution, and the Founder’s view of freedom in the hope of protecting liberty in the United States.