Christian J. — the man behind the blog “What Men are Saying About Women plus a plethora of Issues facing Both Sexes and Society at Large” and the inventor of the MRA two-dot ellipsis – is back! And he’s none too happy about the results of the US election. Because FEMALES.
Here is his highly cogent analysis of Obama’s victory, from a post titled The Bitch “Gimme” Vote Reinstalls Feminist Wimp Back into Office.
The Bitch vote for Obama was always guaranteed as women are only ever interested in handout and what governments can do for them. This is unfortunately as sad fact of life. Women have always voted for Marxists/Socialist/Liberals as they have always promosed them more and more benefits at the expense of all men. Men just end up paying the bills as usual. Doesn’t that suck!
One has to wonder whether women actually give a damn about anything else besides themselves. Voting for someone who may at least do something about the unprecedented US debt and holding back this Marxist neurotic is apparently not one of them. …
[T]his liar in chief will mouth promises, lie about anything and still get re-elected by a bunch or hopeless and tunnel envisioned females who only consideration is how much money they will get out of it all. This is and has been their ulterior motive. Women and money as synonymous like peas in a pod. Their thinking is always restricted to today and screw the future because they will just get more money then. So it’s not problem.
Meanwhile, suckers like you and me get screwed with ever increasing taxes while our standard of living hits the floor. Charming.
If only the vote were restricted to clear-headed men like Christian!
Damn those “tunnel envisioned females” and their obsession with “handout!”
In a followup post, Christian warns men not to be suckered by women pretending that they all aren’t evil harpies:
Just in case you are still one of those drones who believe that women are just harmless individuals who constantly suffer from something or another. They are helping themselves in the process while you take your time to wake up to the bleeding obvious.
Men! Wake up and smell the women!
@khantron, @lowquacks – I was doing some reading re: the national debt and budget deficits last night, and I think Bill Clinton was the last president to oversee a tax hike. He raised the rates for the top earners and signed onto the bipartisan Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (which promised lots o’ spending cuts, most of which never occurred or were offset with new spending). If you believe some of today’s pundits, raising taxes on top earners is supposed to kill any and all economic growth in its tracks. Yet somehow the dot-com boom happened under these onerous conditions.
George H.W. Bush raised taxes and cut spending, too. He had, too, since by 1990 he had an economy in recession, falling revenues, and a whole bunch of mandatory spending from both traditional commitments and newer ones left over from the Reagan era. Then he got crucified for the tax increase in the ’92 election. Nothing like rewarding fiscal responsibility.
*He had, too * = *He had to*
Maybe the grammar and spelling from the OP are contagious.
@Khantron: Reagan promised he wouldn’t raise taxes, and then he did. I don’t know about Bush I. Clinton raised taxes amid tons of whining from the right that it would sink our economy, and we grew a budget surplus by the end of 2000 that was projected to last for years.
Bush II came in and cut taxes across the board and spent the surplus on giving The People Their Money Back (I got $300, how about you?). Those tax cuts were set to expire January 1, 2011, but the housing bubble burst and we entered the recession, so Obama agreed to extend the tax cuts for 2 years, and promised he wouldn’t do it again.
So January 1, 2013, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, and I think tax rates are going to go up 3% across the board (I’m not good with numbers), so there’s that, but that’s just returning to the tax rate under Clinton. Fox News spun it as “THE BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY” but that was because it was the biggest tax cut in history and it was set to expire.
There’s also the fact that the right set up a 40% cut in defense spending to take place early next year. That’s unusual, I hear you say. Why would a party so adamantly insistent that we need to spend everything on our military set up a 40% defense spending cut? And the answer is simple. If that happens all at once, we’re in trouble, and the right set it up like that so they could fearmonger, hold our economy hostage again, and blame it all on Obama — “Why is Obama not taking any steps to fix this? He totally could, though! Is it because he hates America?”
But Congress could totally fix that by making the defense cuts gradual, retroactively.
Apropos of nothing, does anyone know why sometimes people on the right spell Obama with an apostrophe, like he’s a Celt? I see “O’Bama” or “O’bama” sometimes.
Ninjas are deadly and silent.
I see that too, Falconer. I think it’s an attempt to once again point out that HE IS NOT LIKE US by giving his name a “foreign” spelling (like Dinesh D’Souza…).
Incidentally, Obama does have some Irish heritage. 🙂
http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2012/03/20/no-doubts-as-to-obamas-irish-ancestry-now/
Bush I Before that, Reagan. The latter was much more regressive, because he raised “payroll” taxes, not income taxes. Reagan also engaged in the practice Romney was talking about. He did a “revenue neutral” adjustment of the tax code; which means if the upper rates go down, the lower rates go up, which shifts the burden to the lower quintiles.
Because Reagan was all for the working class.
drst: 20 years ago the Republican party would’ve been as “Bwuh?” about that position as I am now.
I wish I could say the same. The Clinton attempt to do something about healthcare was 20 years ago. The “fiscal conservatives” were against Social Security. They were against Medicare.
This, “they are poor, so they don’t deserve any good thing” is an old strain of the culture.
Regan got his start in national politics doing records of talking points against Medicare; they were meant for, “doctors’ wives” who would invite non-doctors’ wives over for the afternoon, and propagandise them, in the hope they would tell their husbands about how the Democrats were going to steal their healthcare.
And now I’m off to march in a Veteran’s Day Parade.
Oh, I didn’t even know about all of those sneaky Reagan fiscal shenanigans. That’s something that my right-leaning business professors never mentioned while they were swooning over supply-side theory and Reaganomics. I need to further my education.
You had business professors who didn’t see the giant, gaping arsehole in supply-side theory?
Then again, I had philosophy professor who didn’t see the problem with strawmanning Milton Friedman and defending it with appeals to ignorance, so I guess I’ve encountered that kind of nonsense before.
@2-D Man – I had a few upper-level economics professors who seemed pained that they had to give any time to Keynesian theory at all. Every time I hear somebody start railing about how universities are crammed with ivory-tower intellectuals who do nothing but brainwash impressionable youth with Marxist dogma, I think back to my own higher education and chuckle.
All these CEO’s and millionaires complaining about the possible expiration of the Bush tax cuts need to stop being such whiners and pull themselves up by their own BOOTSTRAPS. That’s the advice they give everyone else when we speak out about our schools being underfunded, not having access to the healthcare we need, and worrying about the rising cost of food. And we’re the selfish ones?. Those millionaires are shooting themselves in the foot, too, because a more progressive tax code stimulates the economy and helps them make better profits. They’d rather have less money for themselves as long as they can watch everyone else suffer. It’s unbelievable.
*slow clap*
I was just checking on what “60 Minutes” is showing tonight, and one of the topics is on the fact that there are millions of jobs open where the employers can’t find workers skilled enough. I’m wondering what kind of skills are needed (chemical engineering, fluency in Farsi…?) and watch the trailer. The main thing that they’re looking for? Someone who can write a sentence in English without serious spelling and grammar errors. THAT’S the “skill” that is lacking.
I think I’ve solved the MRA problem of why they can’t get jobs – and i’s dont think its cuz us wimmins r taking they’re jobz.
Cloudiah, I followed your link to the Petraeus article on Spearhead, and now I think I will clear my aura by changing the catpan.
These idiots want to ignore the fact that so many women and children have been dependent on the government because of male irresponsibility.
Ruby, you mean those women weren’t hypergamous? Huh.
Rahu, after reading plenty of forum posts by people looking for jobs who are more than able to string sentences together, I am starting to think that this is more about the companies’ bullshit catching up with them. In other words, with the unreasonable requirements for positions (2 years work experience with exactly this job for an entry level position), low compensation, software that filters out resumes that hit the right key-words, and sorting out people who aren’t currently employed, all that’s left in their pile are the liars and the kooks.
AndersH – You’re very right. I agree. And to be clear, I was by no means trying to insult anyone who is currently unemployed. I was just making a point that the typical MRA’s usage of, well, “unique” spelling and grammar probably isn’t helping them much in the job search, and might be a contributing factor in addition to us horrible females.
“one of the topics is on the fact that there are millions of jobs open where the employers can’t find workers skilled enough”
How is this even true in a recession?
Why aren’t English majors sought after if it is true?
Is 60 Minutes smoking something?
About the jobs…
I’d heard something like that previously. The catch was the employers weren’t offering the prevailing wage, and a lot of people weren’t willing to take a job with those requirements at that pay. The free market at its finest, and the business owners were pissed.
Again, I think it comes from the same mentality where employers think that jobs are gifts to their employees and not a necessary part of the functioning of the business and of the economy as a whole.
@pecunium – yeah I tend to think anything that happened when I was a kid was “20 years ago” and keep forgetting “Nope, that was 40 years ago!” *sails further down the River DeNial*
I know here that some employers, especially those who run orchards and fruit yards, can’t find workers who will work hard physical jobs and actually show up two days in a row and don’t destroy more fruit than they pick. So they import workers from Tonga and the Cook Islands. And then racist arseholes complain about brown people ‘stealing their jobs’ and daring to congregate in groups in town centres and speak a language that isn’t english.
Total fail on blockquote.
Sorry.