« Guest Post: The Year 2058 | Main | The End is Nigh': Estrogen Edition »

October 12, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

kid dynamite

phenomenal. thank you for bringing this to our attention.

 Anal yst is fucking retarded

Hey Anal yst,

You are fucking retarded and your name is extremely lame.

First of all, Obama never said he was definitely going to raise taxes, he said it depends on what the economy does, and mind you, this is before the market collapsed about 1000 points in two days. Now that the Fed has basically made money free to borrow, he will most likely reconsider raising taxes because paying down our debt to reduce rates will no longer work as it did in the 90s. And please don't get me started on vodoo supply-side economics. It's all bullshit and you know it.

Where do you get the "statistic" that 40 percent of Americans don't pay taxes? Are you kidding me?! Do you really think people are dumb enough to believe that? Even with earned income tax credits, tax loopholes and trusts, the large majority of people still pay taxes. And with welfare reform passed in the 90s, which was a bipartisan effort, you don't have people living off the government for more than five years. That claim is almost as believable as saying that Palin would be qualified to be president if McCain were elected and collapsed in office.

These large corporations you speak of that pay the highest corporate taxes in the world, how many of them actually pay the full rate? Few to none. Why? Because they have lawyers and accountants who find all of the tax loopholes, and they incorporate in NJ, DE, or the Cayman Islands. Yes, taxes suck, but so does having an extremely stratified society with extreme poverty (unless you are lame and naive and truly believe you got where you are without any help from anyone, despite an upper middle-class upbringing, private schooling, zero college debt, etc--seriously, wake up).

The financial companies that are in a bind right now are in one for a reason. If someone stopped for a second to actually check to see what was in these special investment vehicles they were creating and selling shares of, then maybe they would have stopped and would still be around and not owned by sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East, China and by the US government. But they were too busy working hard....just not smart. Goldman is the exception because they actually made money as the subprime borrowers were defaulting. But spineless traders crapped their pants and sold shares, pushing the price of Goldman stock down, forcing them to find outside investors to pump more equity into the company.

By "innovation and risk-taking" do you mean lending to poor people with poor credit? Gee, I wonder why that was never done before? Maybe it's because THEY DON'T PAY BACK THEIR FREAKING LOANS! There's a difference between being reckless and being risk-taking. These guys were clearly reckless, and yet it is the taxpayers, the ones you care so deeply about, that are bailing out these valiant, victimized investment banks and financial companies.

As for healthcare, he will require that all children be covered. He is not making it mandatory for adults.

It's interesting how you complain about deficit spending when over the past eight years we have nearly doubled our national deficit. We now owe the world $10 trillion! And spending $10 billion per month in Iraq--a war that was stupid to begin with since Saddam Hussein never had WMD and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11--isn't helping.

In terms of special interest influence in Washington, I don't think anyone can argue that it could be any worse than this administration's decision to allow oil companies to write it's energy policy. Or the fact that the company, and its subsidiaries, formerly run by the Vice President has obtained the most government contracts to provide civilian services in Iraq. Billions upon billions have been paid to Haliburton and Kellog Brown & ROot, as well as paid mercenaries like Blackwater.

Iraq has nothing to do with stopping genocide in Africa. Once Iraq is secure, troops will be sent home and to Afghanistan. Any forces sent to Africa would be serve primarily as advisors and as part of an international peacekeeping force, something we aren't able to do now because we've basically burned all bridges with our allies.

And I'm sure some Wall Street schmuck like yourself really cares about gun rights. Because assault rifles should be legal because they're good for hunting deer, right?

So you can bitch and moan all you want, but without a doubt, Obama would make a much better president than McCain. Obama will also be a hundred times better than Bush was. Sorry, that's not fair. I mean a thousand times better. As long as one of you idiots don't hire some Oswald to nix him, then maybe our country will have a chance to prosper once again and we'll no longer take for granted our military and those who serve like the current president. How can a commander in chief who has started two wars (only one of with was necessary) ask his troops to make the ultimate sacrifice, but when they return home after fulfilling their duties, are neglected and not provided with the necessary health coverage? Talk about a douche.


1. Did I write the original piece? No, clown, go cry to the WSJ. My issue is with people who sweat (read: love) Obama because they blindly identify with his political rhetoric.

2. I appreciate your taking the time to spell out all those points. Unfortunately, I do not currently have the time to respond to all of them, perhaps later in the week.

3. How is it that you can proclaim to be so sure of my political viewpoints, as directly evidenced by you telling the world what they are? Off what are you basing your conclusions? Clearly, you have some anger issues that need to be worked out though (if it makes you feel better, despite being an NRA-certified Professional Marksman with a Shotgun, my views on Gun Control are quite far from the NRA crowd.)

4. Related to #3 above, maybe you shouldn't assume so much, based off of, as far as I can tell, the pseudonym of the Author.

Thanks for stopping by and proving my point though, I couldn't have said it better myself.


I guess the most obvious problems with the WSJ journal piece are (1) the WSJ is just not that credible on political matters; (2) the alternative to Obama and the Democrats is simply not acceptable in light of the conduct of the Republicans over the past eight years; (3) it sidesteps issues that matter: torture, 'preemptive" war, the rule of law, separation of powers, where Obama will (almost magically) make things better in a hurry; and (4) he will represent a single branch of the federal government, which has its limits. I appreciate that they have an opinion, and it's food for thought, but the message does not resonate with me because it sounds a bit petty and trivial. I mean, if the WSJ dislikes all the things they listed in that article, where were they for the past eight years? And, if they are going to write in such a way that a 'liberal schmuck' can't understand, then they are going to be serving a more and more niche market as the country (very understandably) moves to the left.

same dude

People like Obama, for the most part, because he seems like an honest dude with integrity--basically, the opposite of what we've had for the past eight years. The people don't trust their current president anymore because of, among other things, Iraq (fake yellow cake uranium reports and satellite images of "mobile wmd factories"), the outing of Valerie Plame and the cover up, and the current state of the economy. That is why they want change, to restore integrity, honesty and competency to the White House. Not to say that McCain can't bring those things, but Obama would do a better job. Is Obama something of an opportunist to jump into the a presidential race ripe for picking by the Dem nominee, despite his relative inexperience? Sure. But to some degree all pols are--if they had no ambition or balls, they would just sit on the sidelines all day and comment on the game rather than play it. But the important question is, is he competent? Absolutely. McCain has shown that he is a hothead who pops off at the mouth too much. He speaks before thinking and that's why so many times he has had to recant what he has said just days ago. Also, his health is a huge concern. The fact that no one really knows the status of his health is disconcerting, but becomes quite frightening when you consider who his replacement would be if something happened to him in office.

Angry? Yes, I am. I am angry when morons disparage a man who has dedicated his whole life to serving the public. What have you or this lame writer at the WSJ done for the public good? Does writing witty political zingers really count as helping people or serving the country? Fine, maybe you don't agree with his policies, but first of all, don't make up facts to support your argument (40 percent of Americans don't pay taxes!!!), and second, if you are going to attack a man, do it with some integrity. Sarcasm is for the spineless. I know you didn't write the article, but apparently you thought it good enough to post on your blog (yet you mention that it doesn't resonate with you because it sounds petty and trivial??? If that is the case, why post it at all!?).

And for the record, I am not a "liberal schmuck" you condescending douchebag. We differ on matters of policy. Conservatives such as yourself are just upset because you don't have a candidate who inspires you. You don't even really have the patrician figure or the regular joe that you guys usually like. You have an ornery old man who, let's be honest, has already seen his best days.


@ Guest & Same Dude

Thanks for reading. I hope you will read and comment on future articles. We always appreciate discourse, regardless of whether we're in agreement or not; it is the healthy conversations such as this, of opposing viewpoints, that are part of what make this country great. Regardless of the outcome, it should be well-considered, if nothing else.

Thanks again.



Listen, it is true that 40% of americans don't pay taxes, but it's not true that 40% of working americans don't pay taxes. Working americans make up a much smaller percentage, but there are still many that don't.

In principle this is a bunch of BS in my book. Why do lazy or unlucky people deserve my money? I didn't do anything to put them in their current situation, and I would say that in most cases it's their own fault. In our country, you have the right to persue happiness, you do not have the right to take other people's money, and in effect that is what Obama wants to do - it's just not called stealing if the government does it.

What we really need are less no good worthless people doing nothing in their lives. DO SOMETHING!!! At any moment in time I could find 1000 jobs that suck, but still pay some money, so don't tell me you can't find a job....maybe there just isn't one available where you sit on your couch or smoke pot with your boys all day.

I'm really fed up with how big of babies we have become in this country. There is always someone else to blame but ourselves. It's absolutly pathetic that our country has the smallest nut sac of all the countries in existance (except for maybe france).

Back during the WWII days, we were men and we stood up for the things we knew were right and we did things honorably. People had a sense of pride in themselves and what they did....now people complain that big gov't or big business or social norms or this and that...wah wah wah wah!!! I say man up, stop your whining and do something about it if your aren't happy. Think about what would have happened if our founding fathers cried about all their problems instead of doing something about them.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rule #1: Share

Find Us:

  • Anal_yst:
    its.the.anal.yst at gmail dot com Twitter: Anal_yst
  • 1-2:
    onetwoknockout at gmail com Twitter: onetwoko

Search 1-2 Knockout

Contact 1-2

  • Contact 1-2


Google Analytics

  • google analytics