Joked Bill Clinton, who had to later explain that it was a joke: "It’s a joke. It’s a total joke. It’s meant to point out that’s the unilateral explanation for everything that’s wrong with America. You know, we all need to lighten up here, have a little sense of humor."
Okay, but can we please not keep using the joke about shooting someone on a particular street in New York City?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७३ टिप्पण्या:
If you need the joke explained you really need help.
It's like apologizing when you don't owe an apology.
Bill might be joking but he isn't wrong that in their heart-of-hearts Sanders and many of his supporters think that is a solution.
Of course in the case of Bernie Sanders, the underlying Truth is that Sanders' policies are a joke.
In the case if Trump, the underlying Truth is that his supporters' unquestioning and fanatical support is the joke.
Sanders supporters love his ideas --- but don't want to pay more in taxes for them. And REALLY don't want to do so when they get jobs.
Chuck, you need to get it through your head that it is not that people are "fanatical supporters" of Donald Trump; it is that they really hate all those people who cannot stand Trump - possibly including you!
" it is that they really hate all those people who cannot stand Trump - possibly including you!"
I don't hate them. I just think they are pitiful not to understand what is going on.
Chuck said...
"Of course in the case of Bernie Sanders, the underlying Truth is that Sanders' policies are a joke.
In the case if Trump, the underlying Truth is that his supporters' unquestioning and fanatical support is the joke."
You don't understand why people support Trump and you are too lazy/stupid to figure it out. That or you understand it but refuse to acknowledge it.
Either way it reflects poorly on you. I understand a variety of reasons why people support Cruz. I started out supporting him. I understand why people supported all of the open borders oligarch pets. Just follow the money.
Cruz will realize his only path to the white house is on a Trump ticket. I have faith he is smart enough to realize winning the nomination on the 3rd ballot and running as the nominee will fail in November.
Well, yes. "Hate" really means something more intense than "strong dislike," but that is how we use it these days.
We all heard the dog whistle loud and clear.
An Eye For an Eye also sounds harsh . But it is of course a Limitation of violence standard given by Yahweh to His Hebrews he was always having to restrain.
Like wise this shooting one third of Capitalist Running Dogs standard is a limitation on the Communist Party's Mass Murder technique for fundamentally transforming Capitalism.
And I am sure Commissar Bernard understood every word of it.
I forget whether decimation is killing one in ten or nine in ten.
Sanders supporters love his ideas --- but don't want to pay more in taxes for them.
Note though that Hillary has admitted that her plans aren't that much cheaper, and will also require massive tax increases (which is just fine when you have as much money as the Clintons do, with much of it probably already hidden offshore).
I forget whether decimation is killing one in ten or nine in ten.
One in 10, and the members of their 10 man unit had to do the killing. It showed dedication to kill one of their own to salvage their honor.
It's important to consider the source of a person's wealth rather than just the isolated fact of their wealth. A person who has made their money in the sports and entertainment industries has enriched not just themslves but all of us. For this reason I would recommend that they be exempt from all tax laws. These are activities we should want to encourage. Some thought should be given to special dispensations-- beyond what they already receive--to laws prohibiting murder and rape........On the other hand, people in the banking, energy, and real estate industry enrich only themselves and should be punished by the tax code accordingly. Tax rates should start at 90% for people who work in those fields. The murder of one third of all oil executives sounds too low. Those people are killing us. An execution rate of 75% seems about right. Hark back to the Leninist ideal of executing Orthodox priests and confiscating gold religious objects.
"Sanders supporters love his ideas --" I don't think most Sanders supporters, at least the younger ones, have even the foggiest understanding of his ideas or their potential ramifications. They love the idea of sticking it to the Man, but aren't capable of reasoning through how all this plays out when they're grown up and have to become the Man. Hopefully, the voting public will save them from themselves.
Decimation is killing one in ten. It is not the near killing off of one's own slave labor force or soldiers. You still need them.
It is a classic intimidation being administered by Authority in public done to make the 90% into a more committed labor force or canon fodder for battle.
The gentry left are not socialists - they are utopians.
Bill Clinton, the horny senior class president was smart enough to become a big wig in Arkansas and charmed his way to the White House without ever growing up. Too bad his sense of humor doesn't work at 70.
I know damn well, why some voters support Sanders, and Clinton, and Trump. They feel like poor victims and they want big government, led by people whom they imagine are just like them, to give them free stuff.
The gentry left are not socialists - they are utopians.
The place where I quibble is that socialism depends on utopianism. It is not based on how man really is, but rather, it is based on a perfected man (and, yes, totalitarian force can be justifiably used to perfect man so he can live in such a society, esp. under communism, but also under other forms of socialism). So, thinking of Venn diagrams, all serious socialists are utopians, but not all utopians are socialists, which arguably makes socialism a proper subset of utopianism.
Well, I have to agree with myself. Under most forms of socialism, there are the equal, and then the more equal - the leaders. The leaders are the utopians. And, the masses are just opportunistic, getting more than they produce by signing on. So, neither is a proper subset of each other. And, I guess that means that I mostly agree with Hagar.
Sorry - should have said that I "disagreed" with myself, not "agreed".
While I would prefer that every third person on Wall Street simply move into a more productive career rather than be shot I am OK with shooting them. Either way it will be good for the economy.
Is target a better word?
Blogger William said...
It's important to consider the source of a person's wealth rather than just the isolated fact of their wealth.
--
I notice those in Sander's camp often refer to those who "hold the wealth".
They usually have the fixed size pie and focus on relative slices as their economic mindset.And despite the prevalence of tech, online video and easy access to communication, none seem to be interested in using that tech to "democratize" education. They want it "free" but under the old brick and mortar paradigm. I understand that less than their falling for the notion of "Medicare for all", given they've never looked at a CMS statement.
"Now THERE'S an idea!"
--Sanders Supporters
Quite so, but socialists slog and do the math, while pure utopians just take flight and soar.
ARM: While I would prefer that every third person on Wall Street simply move into a more productive career rather than be shot I am OK with shooting them. Either way it will be good for the economy.
Listen to this little dirtbag.
Note though that Hillary has admitted that her plans aren't that much cheaper, and will also require massive tax increases (which is just fine when you have as much money as the Clintons do, with much of it probably already hidden offshore).
I'd have mentioned that, but it'd probably make me a sexist or something. The Democrats have decided to abandon the concept of "economic reality".
"Sanders supporters love his ideas --" I don't think most Sanders supporters, at least the younger ones, have even the foggiest understanding of his ideas or their potential ramifications. They love the idea of sticking it to the Man, but aren't capable of reasoning through how all this plays out when they're grown up and have to become the Man. Hopefully, the voting public will save them from themselves.
"GIMME" is a shockingly effective campaign strategy, apparently.
Sanders supporters want tiny houses, free food, and free everything. They would not need a Wall Street. Stupid fuckers.
Last night Greta was especially good. She said it on air what I have been saying which is this: this angry old man has been in Congress and on government dole all his life and he could not accomplish anything about any of the things he talks about. Why are we giving him a platform for his pretense and incompetence and allowing him to distort and convolute the picture? Don't answer that. There are enough schmucks in this world that would take him seriously.
@pm317 said...
Sanders supporters want tiny houses, free food, and free everything. They would not need a Wall Street. Stupid fuckers.
The Eagles got there first:
Some rich men came and raped the land
Nobody caught them
Put up a bunch of ugly boxes, and
Jesus, people bought them
And they called it paradise
The place to be
They watched the hazy sun, sinking in the sea
Who will provide the grand design?
What is yours and what is mine?
Because there is no more new frontier
We have got to make it here
We satisfy our endless needs and
Justify our bloody deeds
In the name of destiny
And in the name of God
They call it paradise
I don't know why
You call someplace paradise
Kiss it goodbye
What is that gambling expression about poker that goes something like this "if you are at the table and don't know who the mark is, then it's you". A perfect way to sum up Sanders' supporters.
"AReasonableMan said...
While I would prefer that every third person on Wall Street simply move into a more productive career rather than be shot I am OK with shooting them. Either way it will be good for the economy.
4/16/16, 11:52 AM"
A better prophylactic and curative for economic maladies and a wondrous tonic for the economy would be the hanging of every socialist.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that every leftist possessed of an office must be in want of a gulag.
cubanbob said...
A better prophylactic and curative for economic maladies and a wondrous tonic for the economy would be the hanging of every socialist.
I'm OK with this as long as all those Republicans that keep voting for Social Security and Medicare go first.
Jason said...
Listen to this little dirtbag.
Humorless dummy.
(I'm guessing a lawyer.)
pm317:
What has Hillary done off the government dole besides get paid handsomely for her access to the levers of power of government?
"AReasonableMan":
Please do not deny your fascism in the future. You would either kill or order killed people for their jobs. You are a would-be tyrant. I hope you reap exactly what you are so busy sowing.
"AReasonableMan":
Jokes about murder are only funny if they contain a little truth. You reveal too much truth.
Obviously Zionist Jew investment bankers should be rounded up and thrown in incinerators like the subhuman vermin they are. I KID! I KID!
#ALMthoughts
AReasonableMan said...
cubanbob said...
A better prophylactic and curative for economic maladies and a wondrous tonic for the economy would be the hanging of every socialist.
I'm OK with this as long as all those Republicans that keep voting for Social Security and Medicare go first.
4/16/16, 1:01 PM"
I'm with you on that just as long as the Democrat Socialists give me back my paid in 'contributions' in inflation adjusted dollars and interest.
Replace every third person on Wall Street with a government agent and you will notice a severe and progressive inflation.
In order to reduce personal liability (i.e. shared responsibility), they implement financialization, redistributive, and debt schemes.
cubanbob said...
I'm with you on that just as long as the Democrat Socialists give me back my paid in 'contributions' in inflation adjusted dollars and interest.
I'm OK with this so long as all those geriatric Republicans start paying the full cost of their medical care, which is currently bankrupting the country.
"I'm OK with this so long as all those geriatric Republicans start paying the full cost of their medical care, which is currently bankrupting the country."
Paul Ryan had a pretty good plan to do so. Democrats ran ads of him pushing old ladies off cliffs.
And then we got Obamacare.
Be careful what you wish for.
ARM said: "I'm OK with this as long as all those Republicans that keep voting for Social Security and Medicare go first."
Why is it that every leftist believes Republicans are anti-social security and anti-medicare? The Medicare bill was passed with fairly strong bi-partisan support, including 40% of the Republicans in the Senate and over half the Republicans in the House. Moreover, a Republican president was the one who championed Medicare Part D. Ronald Regan was the one who chartered the Greenspan Commission to develop a bi-partisan plan to save SS from going bankrupt, and the resulting Reagan-O'Neill compromise bill was overwhelmingly passed by a strong bi-partisan majority in both houses and, in fact, SS is still solvent because of that initiative. Taxing 50% of SS receipts of higher income individuals and using those funds to bolster the SS Trust was key to the continued viability of SS. Clinton, on the other hand, raised the percentage of SS that could be subjected to income tax to 85% and diverted those additional tax proceeds to Medicare, and did it backdoor through a budget reconciliation ruse (sound familiar?) and without a single Republican vote in either house. This did nothing to help SS, and, in fact, if the additional tax had been added to the SS Trust that fund would have been in much better shape today. Both SS and Medicare as programs still have strong bi-partisan support, albeit there are disagreements on many specifics in the programs.
There are a lot of really, really idiotic misconceptions among the left regarding social programs vis-a-vis Republicans because leftists usually form their opinions independent of rational analysis - after all, that's how they came to be leftists in the first place.
Crony capitalism is what's wrong with America, Bill. But without it you wouldn't have become wealthy.
Which makes me wonder. How much graft is Obama going to be dragging with him when he leaves the White House?
In order to promote the general Welfare: economic revitalization, contributory entitlements (e.g. Medicare, Social Security, etc.), and welfare in that order.
Oh, and end abortion rites under reactive parenthood, and clinical cannibalism under planned parenthood. The gods from the twilight zone, and their "secular" advocates, are actually spaghetti monsters.
Blogger AReasonableMan said...
cubanbob said...
I'm with you on that just as long as the Democrat Socialists give me back my paid in 'contributions' in inflation adjusted dollars and interest.
I'm OK with this so long as all those geriatric Republicans start paying the full cost of their medical care, which is currently bankrupting the country.
4/16/16, 1:34 PM"
But only after they get back from Democrats the money stolen from them by FDR and LBJ for both earned and unearned 'entitlements' and other social spending programs. Like I said when they get reimbursed with inflation adjusted dollars and with interest paying their own way won't be a problem.
jaydub said...
The Medicare bill was passed with fairly strong bi-partisan support, including 40% of the Republicans in the Senate and over half the Republicans in the House. Moreover, a Republican president was the one who championed Medicare Part D. Ronald Regan was the one who chartered the Greenspan Commission to develop a bi-partisan plan to save SS from going bankrupt, and the resulting Reagan-O'Neill compromise bill was overwhelmingly passed by a strong bi-partisan majority in both houses and, in fact, SS is still solvent because of that initiative. Taxing 50% of SS receipts of higher income individuals and using those funds to bolster the SS Trust was key to the continued viability of SS.
Go tell it on the mountain, brother. Preach it to the people. This is the gospel truth.
How much graft is Obama going to be dragging with him when he leaves the White House?
As most here know, I am not an Obama fan. But, I just don't see him skimming off nearly as much as have the Clintons. SF may be right that Hillary's corruption is not just about money, but it is a big part of it. Always has been, at least since she moved down to Arkansas and started parlaying her husband's political successes into more and more money. I can see the Obamas being comfortably well off, but not driven to be filthy rich like the Clintons seem to have been.
Bernie shoots! The Hildebeest will loot----Bernie just needs to leave enough Wall Streeters alive so Hillary can keep on milking them for dough.
ARM: "Go tell it on the mountain, brother. Preach it to the people. This is the gospel truth."
The portion of my post which you chose not to endorse is also the gospel truth. Why do leftists promote the pieces of the truth that satisfy their prejudices but obfuscate other truths which bring their prejudices into question? That was a rethorical question, ARM.
"Why is it that every leftist believes Republicans are anti-social security and anti-medicare?"
If only. That is, if only Republicans had had the ability and grit to abort those measures while they were still in the gestating period. Even FDR (secretly) was supposed to have called SS, when it was explained to him, "the stupidest idea I've ver heard of."
What happens is the usual: "liberal" State-shtuppers propose a measure that will increase the power of the State and diminish the private sphere. They say: "We just want to do this one thing (SS, medicare, whatever) and then we'll be happy." So the me-too Republicans offer some weak resistance, and the Democratic State-shtuppers come back with, "Only a heartless monster would be opposed to . . . [whatever]" and the Republicans come back with, "Duhhh, we're not heartless!" and let the Democrats have their way. Then in a few years the Democratic State-shtuppers are back with another statist scheme, saying, "Okay, that last one was a start, but they don't quite do the job, so let's have . . . [some further extension of State power]. Only a monster would be against it." And the Republicans cave again!
And the State rolls on. . .
Only Democrat politicians can get away with telling 'jokes' about shooting folks...
Well for Clinton, jailing or fining every Wall Street criminal would be tantamount to killing his income stream, so I guess I see where the big hard-on is coming from.
Trump says he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing supporters. Bubba says Bernie wants to shoot one out of three people on Wall Street. Hillary says the gun manufacturer should be financially liable for either.
But Ted Cruz is supposed to be the "scary, dangerous" one.
When it comes to Cruz and firearms, you have nothing to fear -- unless you're bacon.
Can't we just shoot them all and start over?
Bill.
No.
I'm sure Beldar will tell us "rules are rules" and the Trump voters have no standing to complain. After all they should have known just voting in the primary isn't enough.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/16/trump-13/
The GOP is doubling down on stupid here.
Bruce @ 2:25
Well. He's a Chicago pol so a lot of the graft is on the backside and involved with relatives and close friends. I'd be very surprised if he a mooshelle aren't worth a couple of units by 2020.
walter writes: I notice those in Sander's camp often refer to those who "hold the wealth".
A misconception. For instance, I control a modest amount of wealth. Every penny of it, except for a few bucks in reserve to pay taxes, is out in the wide world paying peoples' salaries and buying equipment for companies to make stuff with. I'm not "holding" any of it.
The seriouser folks in Sander's camp also don't want to hold the wealth. They simply object to anyone but themselves having any control over it, no matter where it came from or how it was created. (I added that last bit in a fit of generosity toward those few Sanders folks who understand that wealth can be created.)
It's about power.
Liberals are like creationists. Capitalist economics is like evolution. Liberals have no problem with natural selection, but talk about it's analogue in economics, the invisible hand, and they sputter in disbelief and posit some dark hand in final control picking winners and losers.
If your grandparents worked and saved their whole lives, sacrificing many niceties to pay their mortgage and set money aside, and they have more money than their college student grandson who has never held a real job yet, why that's unfair and obviously the governments monopoly on violence needs to be used to even stuff out and take grandma and grandpa's stuff and "spread it around."
Better yet, let's make taxes so high and keep printing money to force down interest rates so that saving is all but impossible for any but the most dedicated miser! That way only investors, a.k.a. "speculators" can get rich!
Tim, It's what I refer to as "The Peasant fallacy of Economics" Peasants believe that there is only so much wealth in the world. Therefore if you have more than they do you stole it from them.They also confuse wealth with money. This is what I like to call "The Scrooge McDuck fallacy" Every person of wealth has a room in their home where they keep huge amounts of cash and gold coins which they wallow in from time to time. Liberals are totally clueless about how wealth is created. How it is managed and how it grows.
Bruce Hayden,
You, like so many others confuse income and wealth. It is possible to have one without the other. Think of the farmer who is a multimillionaire (farm value) but has an income of $50,000per year. Or Warren buffett. Or high income athletes who have very low net worth.
In the US, with a few exceptions like property tax, we donot tax wealth. Once you get it you can keep it taxfree.
John Henry
John Henry:
You forgot the words "for now" at the end of your last sentence.
"Under current law, subject to change" is wordy but also correct.
@ Ken B: The link you provided simply shows that more Cruz and Kasich supporters showed up for the delegate selection than Trump supporters. Trump got outvoted in that election. He still will get the benefit of the votes of the delegates legally pledged to him on the first ballot; he won that in the Georgia primary, and he'll get it. But stupidly, the Trump campaign basically quit in every state they'd already won -- and the process wasn't over.
So yeah, you're right, I am going to say: Those were the rules, and you're whining.
Beldar said...
"So yeah, you're right, I am going to say: Those were the rules, and you're whining."
If Cruz steals the nomination on the 3rd ballot we won't be whining. We will be ensuring that every last vestiture of the corrupt Republican National party is removed as a barrier to the will of the people one way or another.
Blogger Bruce Hayden said...
will also require massive tax increases (which is just fine when you have as much money as the Clintons do, with much of it probably already hidden offshore).
Bruce, you make a common mistake that always sets my teeth on edge. You confuse income and wealth. Our country has lots of wealthy people with relatively low income. Think of the Wisconsin farmer with a $million worth of land and $60,000 year income. Or Warren Buffett, for that matter. Also lots of high income people with little or no wealth, because they spend all the income. Athletes are one example.
We have no tax on wealth, with a few exceptions like property tax. Once the wealth is accumulated, no matter where it is kept, it is safe from taxation.
Should we have a wealth tax in the US? Good question but that's for another day.
John Henry
Sorry for the repetive posting. When I posted originally on my tablet and it did not post immediately, I figured it was lost in the ether.
Ignore my second posting about not taxing wealth.
Achilles:
I assume you reject the illegitimate President Abraham Lincoln, right?
My God, I actually agree with Bill Clinton about something.
(By which I mean, how stupid it is to blame everything on "Wall Street", and even worse, do so amorphously.
I've seen far too many internet "activists" blame all the "banksters" and "Wall Street" as a whole for everything they dislike, and demand "sending them to jail".
Problem is, none of them ever bother to mention - even when asked, typically- exactly which statutes they're supposed to have violated, or exactly what wrong they did, other than "being bankers".)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा