The Battle of Guantanamo Bay

101 years ago, the US invaded Guantanamo Bay. It was a battle in one of the lesser examined wars in US history: The Spanish American War. In 1898, it was some Marines fighting some Spainards. Now the Second Battle of Guantanamo Bay is between Democrats and their old arch nemesis: Reality.

The Democrats are always the sentimental favorites, but they always lose to Reality. Democrats think you can just throw money at problems and they'll go away. Reality disagrees. Democrats think you can negotiate with the lunatics that run countries like Iran. Reality really crushes them in that battle.

During Barack's campaign, Guantanamo was a rallying cry of the New York Times Liberal (NYTL). They even used a cool, slick nickname for the base: "Gitmo." After all, Guantanamo Bay sounds like a Spring Break hotspot. Gitmo sounds like a futuristic concentration camp.



Shut down Guantanamo! That's what Barack promised he would do back in January. Not IMPROVE Guantanamo. Not IMPROVE the conditions of prisoners in Guantanamo. Flat-out, shut it the fuck down!



Now just a sidenote, I don't think water boarding is torture, but I'm not the Geneva Convention. The US never signed "The Rob Zeitz Treaty" to define torture and all that cool stuff. You have to play by the rules you agree to play by. So I'd be fine with restructuring and improving the conditions at Guantanamo. But "shutting it down?" Why?



Apparently, people can only be tortured in Guantanamo Bay. They can't be tortured anywhere else.

But now Reality wields its formidable arsenal of truths and "face-its." Logistics, an ally of Reality since time began, is the spearhead of the counterattack on liberal idealism. Where do these detainees go? Leavenworth? I don't think Kansas would like that. Colorado? i don't think John Denver would like that.

Face it, no state wants these guys. To me, it's not a big deal if they're here or there. Hell, put them in Walpole. There are murderers and psychos everywhere. But I think people prefer to have them in Cuba, and not their own state. It's part of that whole peace-of-mind thing. Remember, this is the American public, the same people who rushed out to buy duct tape to seal up their houses for fear of massive chemical attacks. They scare real easy.

I have arachnaphobia. There are about 70,000 spiders per suburban acre, and my house sits on about 1/3 of an acre, so that's about 20,000 spiders that I live with. How do i deal with that? I don't see them. I know they're there, but they're not right in my face. It's the same thing with these detainees. People don't want them on the same landmass, let alone the same state.

Of course, the primary feature of the afore-mentioned New York Times Liberal, is an inability to recognize that there are people who don't think like them. The NYTLs (pronounced nittles) just wanted "Gitmo" to go away. They didn't think of the logistics. And now Barack's flip-flopping like John Kerry on a 2 day cocaine bender. He's got his superleft base, and the larger but less vociferous moderates. The superlefts want Guantanamo destroyed and the word erased from history books. The moderates want to keep terrorists in Cuba.

Decisions, decisions...

And say what you want about George W. Bush, but that motherfucker either didn't know or didn't care what would make everyone happy. He did what he thought was right.

Is the Republican Party Dead?

This has been a popular topic of discussion on those 24 hour PowerPoints known as cable news networks. The President is a Democrat. 60 of 100 Senators are Democrats. 257 of 435 (59%) Representatives are Democrats. 29 of 50 Governors are Democrats. And there's really no big name Republicans out there. Who will run against Barack in 2012? Who will save the Republicans, or is it too late?

That's pretty much the gist of what's going on. Reminds me of 2004, when Bush was clearly President, the Republicans were in control of Congress, and it seemed like the 21st century would be the Century of Christian Conservatitude. Everyone was wondering if the Democrats were dead.

Here's what happens in this cycle: Both parties suck. They get power for 4 to 10 years. Then people get sick of them and go to their only alternative. Then the alternative is in power for 4 to 10 years. Then people get sick of them. So they return to the first party, which is their only alternative.

Just look at recent history. Nixon+Ford (R) for 8 years. Then Carter (D) for 4 years. Then Reagan and Bush I (R) for 12 years. Then Clinton (D) for 8. Then Bush II (R) for 8.

Enjoy it while it lasts liberals, because it won't. And neither will the conservative reign of terror to follow, so don't fret.

But I do love how the struggles of the GOP are being covered by the media. Rush Limbaugh's name has been dropped so much that he's challenged MSNBC to not mention him for 30 days.



Sarah Palin. Why is it that only liberals go so far as to characterize Palin as a Republican leader? Many Republicans feel as though she was a hindrance to McCain's hopes, so why would they think she could be electable running at the top of a ticket. (I'd like her on top of my ticket)



But seriously, Palin was the VP candidate because she was young, vibrant, charismatic, a woman, and an old school conservative. Best choice? Perhaps not, but McCain's campaign wanted someone shocking. High risk move that probably didn't pay off, but that's politics. In my opinion, even with a more dignified VP candidate, the Credit Crisis still sinks McCain, just like the iceberg still sinks the Titanic even if those two perverted watchmen aren't preoccupied with ogling Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet making out.



Subtitles remind me of Holy Grail's opening credits.

There really aren't any marquee names in the Republican Party these days. So liberals get to delude themselves into thinking Sarah Palin = GOP.

But wait just a minute. Let's take Barack out of the picture, and what do the Democrats have? It's like taking the Ace of diamonds out of a Royal Flush, it turns into a pretty shitty hand.



Joe Biden?



Nancy Pelosi?



Hillary Clinton?



Misremembered? Apparently Hillary and Roger Clemens have the same set of advisors.

How about John Kerry?



You can still hear that ball bouncing.

So what are the Democrats without Barack? They're not in much better shape than the Republicans. And guess what, there's something called the 22nd Amendment, which limits a President to 2 terms, or 8 years in office.

So instead of everyone wondering who the Republicans will get behind in 2012, they might want to start wondering about the Democrats in 2016. Or 2525, if man is still alive.

How Come Every Time...?

How come every time anybody asks a member of Barack's Administration about increased spending and/or budget gaps, and/or deficits, they always start their answer the same kind of way.

"Well the previous administration increased spending."

"We inherited a record deficit."

"It's all W's fault!"

I haven't heard the third sentence verbatim from the Administration, but that's the basic idea they're trying to convey. The Bush Administration spent a great deal, and Barack's not afraid to remind you whenever anyone questions their catastrophic spendfest.

But I'm a bit perplexed at the logic here. If Bush overspent, and dug the country into a fiscal hole, why are we spending to get out of it?

Imagine going to a quack dietitian, who advised you to eat lots of sugar and salt. You inevitably gain weight, so you go to a new dietitian. This new guy tells you how awful the previous dietitian was, and how much extra work you have to do to fix all the problems he's helped create.



Enjoy a short dialog...

New Dietitian: Well the last guy has put you in an awful mess. We're going to have to work extra hard to get you out. I want you to eat even more sugary and salty foods. Ice cream and French fries!

Patient: But wait a minute, isn't that the problem? I think the sugar and salt might be bad for me.

New Dietitian: Well your last doctor was the problem, you over indulged in the sugar and salt departments. Without him, you wouldn't be in this situation.

Patient: Exactly, so why should I eat even more...?

New Dietitian: Look, we inherited this problem from your last doctor. He made you gain weight at an astronomical pace.

Patient: Yeah so why...?

New Dietitian: Listen, it's not my fault you weight 400 pounds and have diabetes. That was Dr. Bush's doing. Now let's go to Burger King. Whoppers on me.



If you think spending is the way to fix problems, then simply admit it. And most liberals do admit it, just not the elected ones. I tend to disagree, and I find fiscal responsibility in government spending sexually arousing, but I at least understand why people like government spending.

So just give us a straight fucking answer. I'm fine with attributing a part of the budget problem to programs started by Bush's White House, but don't criticize him for spending what you're spending twice as fast. And if he dug us into a hole, digging down even further is only making a bad problem worse.

And we conservatives dropped the ball, as well. Bush had no accountability toward us, and we let him get away with Dukakisesque spending. It's time to get back to basics when it comes to conservatism. All this pro-life, anti-evolution, pro-censorship, moral majority crap needs to go. It's lame.

The government needs to stop spending. No economic recovery EVER has been because of government spending. The history books in school may have told you about the New Deal, but it didn't fucking work. World War II ended the Great Depression, not Franklin Ilyich Roosevelt.

The Leftist Mouthpiece

If you know anyone who reads the New York Times, you already know they read it. They've told you about it a thousand times. And if you ever dared to read something else (even if it was another paper owned by the Times), then the Times reader will explain to you how you've failed at newspaper reading.



Nothing to me better symbolizes liberal know-nothing-know-it-all-ism better than the New York Times. And I couldn't be happier at its recent financial struggles.


I'm fluent in three sections, actually.

And yeah, they certainly have the best, hardest hitting, reporters:



Look at all those smiling journalists, basking in the glory of their demagogue, laughing at the New York Times reporter asking about enchantment when people were panicking about swine flu.

Question for Uberliberals: why is the NY Times so good? If news is news, does it really matter what the disseminating source is? The USA today may be a jumble of graphs, charts, and color photos; but is it not the same news?

Could it be that y'all think the Times is so spectacular and intelligent because it AGREES WITH YOU? Furthermore, you agree with the Times, so you must be smart too!

It's a vicious circle of liberal smugness.

All media has a bias, and anyone that doesn't think so is retarded. Political reporters don't get into politics unless they're interested in politics. And people interested in politics tend to have OPINIONS about politics. And no matter what, these opinions will affect how people see events, and consequently affect how they're reported.

But just admit that, for the most part, the media is liberally biased. The Times, CNN, MSNBC, and so on. And please, stop criticizing FoxNews for being conservative. That's like a lesbian making fun of a gay man for not being straight.



But you know what, I am tired of the liberal and conservative media outlets arguing about who is more biased. How much time does Bill O'Reilly spend railing MSNBC? How much time does MSNBC spend railing Bill O'Reilly? Who even takes Bill O'Reilly seriously?



Why can't we have full disclosure in media? I know on CNBC that guests have to disclose if they own the stock they're discussing, and whenever General Electric is mentioned, they must add "GE is the parent company of this network."

Let's say during election coverage every 4 years, we get to see who Wolf Blitzer voted for? Is the media afraid that disclosing facts like this would reduce their credibility? If we find out that Blitzer is a Democrat, and he's voted Democratically in the last 4 Presidential elections, would we find him less believable when he discusses politics?

Maybe we should give it a shot.

Socialism Security

The grandest Ponzi scheme of them all (in my day we called them pyramid schemes): Social Security. Millions of Americans paying the government, to pay people, because they're old. What the fuck? Why doesn't this piss people off?

It's guilt. Liberal guilt. And it's greed. Conservative greed. Social security is the perfect political clusterfuck. The guilty liberal inside all of us reluctantly, yet willingly pays social security taxes so we can feel like we take care of our old people. The greedy conservative in us loves getting a government check in the mail.

But why did it begin? There was no social security in 1776, nor in 1850, nor in 1920. Franklin D. Roosevelt, a.k.a. Franklin The Overrated, a.k.a. Comrade Franky, a.k.a. the Derek Jeter of Presidents. Roosevelt used his leverage, and his nearly omnipotent political mandate to railroad through social security and loads of other goofy socialist legislation. Sound like someone we know?



$500 billion. That's how much social security was paid out in 2004. Why?

I'm going to seem like a greedy, money grubbing bastard (which is why no politician speaks out against social security), but just being old doesn't mean you deserve money from the government. In fact, you don't deserve any money from the government. The government is not in the business of providing retirement plans for people. At least it shouldn't be. My money is my money, so go fuck yourself.

If you want old folks to get money, then get together AS INDIVIDUALS, and start DONATING money from your paychecks toward your own social security programs. It's called a pension, and it's great.

I should have the right to retain the money that I earn. Selfish? You bet your guilty liberal bleeding heart I'm selfish. The only thing I like more than my money is my right to do what I want with my money.

And the well is running dry. Like all pyramid schemes, when the pyramid stops growing, the scheme collapses. Refresher course on what a pyramid scheme is:

Con artist gets 10 people to invest $100 in a fake company ($1,000 total), promising they'll get $150 in return ($50 profit). Con artist gets 100 more people to invest $100 in same fake company ($10,000 total), promising the same $50 profit. Con artist pays first group of investors with the money from the second group, and pockets the rest. Con artist gets 1000 more people to invest $100 in the fake company ($100,000), promising same $50 profit. Con artist pays the second group, with the money from the third group. And so on, until the con artist stops, or is caught.

It's a good deal so long as you're not in the last group of investors. If you are, you're fucked.

Social security works along similar lines. People working now pay into social security, and that money is distributed to those who payed into it years ago. Eventually, those working now will receive retirement benefits from those working in the future.

Problems: people these days live longer than they used to, and the baby boom generation is retiring.

Solution: Either the pyramid scheme will collapse, with people in my generation (I'm 24) being the last ones to pay, and the first to get fucked by not receiving benefits. OR, we'll take money from other sources (raise taxes) and perpetuate the scheme.



I don't want the government handling my retirement. I don't anticipate living much past the age of 50 anyway, so I want to burn my money now. At the very least, I want to have THE FUCKING RIGHT to burn my money now.



And what's going to happen in 50 years, when people in my generation are 75 years old, and still have 25 to 45 years of life left, and 25 to 45 years of collecting monthy social security checks?

Fun story, the first woman to ever receive a monthly social security check was Ida May Fuller. She paid a total of $24.75 into the system, but lived to be 100 and received nearly $23,000 from the program. so she took 1,000 times more than what she gave. If this doesn't enrage you, you're not a capitalist. The $22,975 that Mrs. Fuller profited from the program means a combined $22,975 loss for others.

That's not right. It's not even left, it's socialist. Give people the right to choose what to do with their money.

Tax Man

Why is everything this Administration does called "reform?" Health care reform, tax reform, economic reform, torture reform, everything is reform. Conform to reform. Remember when Ross Perot founded the Reform Party and got 8 million votes in the '96 election? Shit, that really happened.



Here's Timmy and Barack talkin' taxes:



I could argue against launching a crusade against corporate tax loopholes during the current economic climate. But hey, I have no problem with "cracking down" (that's a pairing of words designed for and by cable news stations) on companies that pretend do business in the Cayman Islands.

I could point out that this is salvo #25,631 of Barack's Robin Hood war against those evil, greedy, horrible corporations.

But all I'm going to point out is the obvious: A speech about "cracking down" on tax cheating corporations given by tax cheat Timothy Geithner. I thought the whole tax thing with him was overblown a few months ago. But to see him talking about how helpful and necessary it is for corporations to pay their taxes really pissed me off.

I can't wait to watch some cable news tonight and see which networks dwell on this hypocrisy (Fox News, CNBC), which ones barely mention it (CNN), and which ones villify those who point it out (MSNBC).

And Geithner is fortunate that WWF superstar Irwin R. Schyster (I.R.S.) is retired, otherwise he'd be in big trouble...