Tuesday, April 15, 2014

What are assault weapons?

Assault Weapon: To conservatives: There's no such thing. It's just a creation. It's nothing more than a name that Democrats and people on the left created to gin up anti-gun sentiment among people. But there really is no official classification of "assault weapon." It doesn't exist. What gun isn't an assault weapon?

To liberals: A psychological creation to make people think guns are bad so they can gain sympathy and pass laws to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. It's an attempte to gain a renewal of the assault weapons ban, universal background checks and prohibition of high-capacity magazine clips, etc.  It's an attempt to create their Utopian dream world where there are no bad guys and only good guys. 

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

What are low information voters?

Low information voters: Independence; people who have no clue who the president is and have an urge to vote because they "need to do their part." They generally vote for the most popular person, and generally have no idea why. They do not follow politics.

According to the New York Times in naming Obama the 2012 Man of the Year, "He won because he got the low information voters to vote for him. 

A low-information voter doesn't have enough information to know that he or she is in that community, so you can talk about them, even make fun of them, and they think you're talking about somebody else. 

Low-information, means you don't know, means you're not informed. Some low-information don't care, to the extent that they care around election time every year, but other than that, it's TMZ and the E! Entertainment channel.

You know, uninformed is not low informed. Uninformed is not they don't care to be informed. The low informed voter simply chooses to be informed about other things, like Claire Danes and what she did with Clinton after the Golden Globes. Or Kim Kardashian's baby with Kanye. I mean, they care more about that than they do the debt limit.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

How do liberals define success?


Liberals define success by how many people are on the government dole.

Conservatives define success my how many people don't rely on the government.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Economics 101: Does amnesty decrease income gap?

So we have previously disproved that high taxes and unions do not improve income gaps, as the three states with the highest taxes, and forced unionization, were the three states listed here:
  1. Arizona
  2. New Mexico
  3. California (top marginal tax is 13%)\
Interestingly enough, another means liberals use to try to decrease the income gap, to create fairness between the rich and poor, is amnesty.  The problem is, that all three states with the highest illegal immigration rates are the same three states listed above.  

So, it would appear that in order to decrease the income gap would be to do the opposite of what liberals propose, and that would be to lower taxes, get rid of unions, and get rid of illegal immigration.  

Could you imagine a politician proposing this?  

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Waht is a narcissistt politician?

Narcissist politician: An inordinate fascination with one's self; excessive self love; selfcenteredness; smugness; a politician who knows he right; It's basically the arrogant, all knowing, never wrong politician who finds that it's best to force his views on us whether we like it or not. It's for our own good

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Economics 101: Do unions decrease the income gap?

Obama has said that raising taxes on the rich would decrease income inequality, or reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.  But, as we proved yesterday, this is not true.  So they also say that unions can improve the income gap.  Is this true. Let us look at the facts.

A state by state comparison did nothing to improve the income gap either.  The following states are all forced union states:

  1. New York
  2. California
  3. New Mexico
This means that in these states you take a job with a unionized firm, you must join the union.  All three of these states have the highest inequality of any other state. 

On the contrary, the states with the lowest income gaps are the following: 
  1. Iowa
  2. Utah
  3. Wyoming
So this goes to show that neither high taxes, nor unions, decrease the gap between the rich and the poor.  This goes against everything taught by liberal institutions. 

Saturday, February 8, 2014

Economics 101: Does raising taxes lower the income gap?

Obama continues to argue that we need to create more fairness between the rich and the poor.  He said it's "unfair" that the rich make so much money while the poor are poor.  He says in order to resolve this problem he must raise taxes on the rich.

However, there is evidence that raising taxes actually makes the income gap between the rich and poor even worse.  Consider a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), which released a report 'Pulling Apart: A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends.

The CBPP used Census Bureau data to determine which states had the largest gap between the bottom fifth of income earners and the top 5% of earners. According to CBPP, the states with highest levels of income inequality are:
  1. Arizona
  2. New Mexico
  3. California (top marginal tax is 13%)
  4. Georgia
  5. New York
Ironically, all of those states had the highest taxes among states.  In other words, these states were listed by Forbes magazine as death spiral states, or states with the most aggressive tax systems.

If higher taxes improved income inequality, then these states would have the lowest income gap of any other states.  But they don't: they have the greatest income gaps.  This is proof that high taxes does not create equality among the people.  

So, if Obama is aware of this fact, of which we should assume he is (or should be), then we must assume he has some other agenda by raising taxes.  What is this agenda?  Might it be that he wants the system to collapse?  I don't know, but I'm just wondering here.