Thursday, February 25, 2010

Basic Litteracy

The knuckle head known as Renegade Spleen apparently showed his lack of literacy when
reading a report about white supremacists at Tea Party events. The ADL report cited several times that the a gitators found the crowd very disinterested in race. The few positive responses were to anti semitic signs ala "No War for Israel".

These anti-Semitic signs and sentiments are present in every Communist organized and run so called peace protest in large numbers and at Ren's site. When FJ tells Ren he would have more luck recruiting Nazis at his own site he is being truthful.

I want to point out the basic 180 communist deception employed by commies. When people like myself point out so called Peace protests are communist led and organized Ren starts to cry about McCarthyism. In fact I have been to many events and confronted marchers with their being used by commies.

Now once again Commies claim the presence of a single white power type at an event makes it a KKK type rally. Sorry, but I did not see any flags other than the American flag at Tea Party events which are on message. One can go to any communist event and see Pseudostinian flags and scores of anti-semitic signs. I also saw plenty of Bush was behind 9-11 signs.

What makes Commies think they are superior to KKK types. Maybe if the KKK were true to form all of its lynchings might add up to 100,000,000 in around 5 million years or so. Sorry, but Commies and KKK types are equally repugnant.


Ducky's here said...

The few positive responses were to anti semitic signs ala "No War for Israel".


Why is that anti-semitic?

You use the word so freely that it has no meaning but I wonder what criticism of Israel is allowed?

Can you give us brief guidelines?

Ducky's here said...

Sorry, but I did not see any flags other than the American flag at Tea Party events which are on message.


What is the tea baggers message?

I think they are expressing fear because they know the good days are long past on gone and we are entering the very severe winter of our discontent but I would like your description.

If you have to spout some crap about it all being about "freedom and democracy" and keeping the nasty muslims out of the country, go ahead but try to be specific.

The Pagan Temple said...


The Tea-Party is about reducing government, or at least reducing government growth, reducing deficits, and keeping taxes as low as possible. It has nothing to do with anti-Israel, anti-Palestine, anti-gay rights, anti-women's rights, or any of the other stuff that gets you all worked up.

The Tea-Party people have had it up to the proverbial "here" with both parties. Republicans take their votes for granted at their own peril. Whoever they vote for, and yes, that will mostly be Republican and practically no Democrats (in any measurable percentage), they are going to demand results, and there will be hell to pay if those results aren't delivered.

Deriding them by calling them Tea-Baggers and racists, etc., is not going to make any difference, and will influence no one outside the Left, who are already a lost cause.

Remember Jimmy Carter? Who became President after him again?

beamish said...

My fear about the Tea Party movement is that for all of its good tunes on taxation and domestic policy, the politicians they seem to be rallying around are disasterous on foreign policy and national security.

Neither Democrats or Republicans are any good on domestic policy (much of which IMHO could be tossed aside laissez faire style and make everyone happy) but at least Republicans have a strong foriegn policy game.

Ducky's here said...


Ducky's here said...

Yes Pagan, but where were you guys when Saint Ronnie Raygun and Chucklenuts Bush were spending us into the poor house?

Not a peep. Pardon me if a see a disconnect and just a soupcon of hypocrisy.

beakerkin said...


No commies are not the same species and need to replace animals in rodeo
events. Seriously communism should be
classified as a form of mental illness.

beamish said...


Obama's spending (even if you only count the "on-the-books" spending) is nearly in excess of FDR's Keynesian orgy.

Reagan and Bush are pikers compared to the spending spree Obama is on. Even taken as a percentage of GDP. OBama is a spending maniac.

Not that I would expect a leftist to set aside his ideological need to put his lack of a capacity for rational thought on display, but is "Reagan had deficits too" really a defense of the practice?

beamish said...


Yes, Dr. Mengele, we are.

Any more questions from the "progressive" eugenics movement?

The Pagan Temple said...


"where were you guys when Saint Ronnie Raygun and Chucklenuts Bush were spending us into the poor house?"

Reagan reduced taxes and increased military spending. Had that been all there was to it, we probably wouldn't have ended up with a mere relatively modest (by today's terms) national debt of a trillion dollars.

What brought us up to that debt level more than Reagans spending requests was the spending habits of the Democratic Congress. Reagan had no choice but to go along to get along. Remember, Congress is the ones who ok the spending. They approved Reagan's budget requests, including tax breaks and military spending, in return for increased spending on entitlements.

You have a little bit more of a better point with Bush, but again, his tax breaks brought us back from the brink of collapse after 9/11. I didn't care for most of his spending priorities either, but he was a skinflint compared to Obama.

Alligator said...

I remember the Carter economy very well. "Malaise" anyone? It took a while but the economy did improve considerably under Reagan. And yes, he did have to go along with a Democratic congress. We must look at the whole picture of power among the branches of government.

The Clinton economy was not all that bad. But then he had a Republican congress keeping him in check. We have been at our worst economically when one party controlled the presidency, senate and house.

Bush started out okay, then went on a spending spree, especially in the latter half of the second term. Republicans for the most part seemed to have abandoned their principles of modest spending and growth in government. The spending mechanisms we see in play in now were engineered by the Bush administration.

Now we have Mr. Obama and a Democratic congress who have kicked spending into over drive. Talk about disconnect "We will spend our way out of this recession" is now the battle cry. The prescription is disaster. If it was bad for Bush to do this (and it was) then why is it okay for Obama do it at treble the rate?

Spending is what gets you in debt, adding to it is not going to get you out. But when your main goal is "social justice" and a re-engineering of American society, then massive debt and its consequences mean nothing.

I predict that if we don't do something fast we are going to see the following:
1. Massive tax increases in the form of VAT that will hit everyone.
2. Bankruptcy for the United States, followed by hyper-inflation.

China is looking to buy more gold and don't be surprised if they dump our treasuries. They've already sent singles they are worried about our proliferate spending. A massive terrorist attack here or abroad on the scale of 9/11 could also push our economy off the cliff. Greece is going down the tubes and there is talk they will start pulling down other European nations with them.
Now the IMF is calling for creating one global currency. We've wired ourselves in with the rest of the globe so if we go, they go and vice versa. Nice. Real nice.

Ducky's here said...

Are you prepared to say that the "Carter economy" was not a reaction to Nixon going off the gold standard and the inflation that caused?

Sometimes events are a little more complicated than just naming the sitting president.

The current crap is a product of idiots like Saint Ronnie Raygun, Big Dawg Clinton and The Dauphin. It's the system, not the president.

Alligator said...


Actually I've always believed Nixon did a bad thing going off the gold standard. And it is not just "presidents." Presidents tend to be figure head in which we can encapsulate the complex ills. It tends to be an easier to reference problems in short conversations like this.

I don't think its just "the system". Personal faults, failure to understand how economies work, and just plain corruption and greed can infect any system. The Eastern bloc sure wasn't a pretty picture in any respect once the iron curtain came down, and I heard plenty of leftists say they were the model of the future.

Now I see and hear people pointing to western Europe as our model. They are about to tank too.

beamish said...

Going off the gold standard was long term smart. There just isn't enough gold in the world, and certainly not enough produced in the history of human civilization to cover the current wealth of the entire United States.

All of the gold in the world, around 10 billion ounces, gathered into one place would currently be worth around $11 Trillion dollars (and right now, the dollar is a weakened currency, so that price is rather on the high side). The net worth of the United States (after liabilities are paid from assets) is around $53 Trillion dollars. There isn't enough gold in the world to buy the assets of the people of the United States at market value. Our wealth in assets - properties and incomes - has quite literally grown beyond the value of gold.

Nixon's economic mistake was in enacting wage and price controls to try to curb inflation while the dollar devalued, a dubious proposition at best, which was further made disasterous by Carter's "Windfall Profits Taxes" and attempting to place price controls on oil and gas (and we all remember the gas shortages that followed).

Obama, who has learned enough from history to pick the policies that were most disasterous for America in the past and implement them again, desires wage and price controls on the medical industry, and windfall profit taxes on businesses and banking.

Price controls and high taxation are a potent mix of economic stupidity.