The Barack Obama-approved revolution in Egypt is already producing exciting new changes thanks to the country's Islamist-dominated parliament. For instance, the minimum age for marriage is being lowered to 14, women will no longer have rights to education or employment, and husbands will now be legally able to have sex with their dead wives for up to six hours following death. After which, the cloud of flies just makes it too hard to see where everything goes.
And while we're taught not to be judgemental of other cultures, Hope n' Change has to admit that Islam isn't exactly covering itself with glory here. When we connect the dots between having sex with virgins in the afterlife, having sex with chickens and children in this life, and having sex with dead women, it seems the unifying idea is for Islamic men to have carnal knowledge with someone who can't critique their performance.
But before we waggle our fingers too hard at Egypt's necrophiliacs, it's only fair to point out that the situation in the United States is about to get even worse.
Specifically, Barack Obama plans to let the Bush-era Estate Tax cuts expire soon, allowing the government to vigorously defile the dead in ways that would make an Egyptian maggot gag.
This means that the current $5 million exemption and top tax bracket of 35% will change to a $1 million exemption, and a jaw-dropping top tax bracket of 55%. That's right, 55¢ of each dollar will be taken from families and be given to the government, even though every dollar had already been taxed to the legal limit during the owner's lifetime.
In real world terms, this means that if a business owner dies, his or her family will probably have to sell the business just to pay the government ghouls. Family farms won't be passed down to children. And more than half of everything that an individual earned in a lifetime will simply be taken by Washington...the better to fund lavish parties for the GSA, campaign trips for lying politicians, and all-expense paid luxury vacations for first ladies.
All considered, we think that Egyptian's "post mortem whoopee" law is more civilized than Obama's Estate Tax law.
Because as distasteful as it is to see death as an invitation to have sex with an individual, it's even worse when it's used as permission to screw entire families.
In other lands, the laws are not like ours. Or maybe they are.
-
I guess going to bed late means I get to be the first to read the Friday comic!
ReplyDeleteEven though this estate tax thing makes me SO MAD! Its literally rape and robbery rolled into one. The government waits until a person is dead and can no longer defend themselves, and then they come in and plunder and steal everything they can get their grubby hands on. Its sick, sick, SICK! What good is it to lay up money for your children when you just know the government is going to take it? May as well kick your feet up, watch soap operas, and collect welfare. (I'm kidding...I think.)
We have GOT to see this stopped. Americans need to get their heads out of the sand and protest this loudly. There's not much time left.
Cradle to post-grave, we own your *ss! Pay up, suckas!
ReplyDeleteSomehow I just can't imagine Barren Wuffett actually owning any valuable property at the time of his death. He'll have transferred just about everything to heirs and charities long before he passes, via trusts and other legal maneuvers.
Again, is it any surprise truly wealthy folk, with their virtual armies of tax attorneys, have little or no problem avoiding paying the death tax? It's really just another tax on poor, uninformed, and/or careless people.
As Paul Harvey used to say, "It's not one world."
ReplyDeleteThe only silver lining (as tarnished and patinaed as that is in this instance) is that the people will find a way to circumvent this, ala the Buffoon, ah, Buffett example cited by BS. Right out of the book "Freakonomics", for every tightening of the government's fist, the more cracks the people will find to slip through the fingers.
ReplyDeleteThe unfortunate part of my point is that the Government will not sheepishly hang its head and throw up its arms in resigned defeat. Rather, it would simply craft more legislation to counter the loopholes (as well as inevitably contradict previous legislation and create so much confusion that everyone is guilty simply by owning something) until we end up with enough red tape to build another planet upon which we can dump these rapacious momzers.
BTW, "The Planet of the Red Tape Hog-Troughers" is the working title of the dystopic future film script that I'm working on. Think of Brazil crossed with Soylent Green, only with a much more downbeat ending. Boy, that Obama sure can inspire one! I hope that I don't make much money on it, though, because it would all go to the Govt. and I'd rather work gratis than give them one more thin dime.
Personally, I would be surprised to see a President Romney doing anything different, despite his personal fortune. Still, I'm hoping to be surprised.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Egyptian law...it's purely a practical matter to protect Muslim men from prosecution for an honest mistake. From what I've read, the level of Muslim women's sexual "enthusiasm" creates real doubt about this. Then again, it could be that they are realizing they're having sex with Muslim men and just want to lie still and think about baking or something.
Or...they pretend to be dead in the hopes that the smelly, muzzie bastard will get it over with and go away. When you have to do something that distatsteful, why pretend you like it?
ReplyDeleteRegarding the first part of your narrative: Eeeeeewwwwwww!
ReplyDeleteLeave it to the gubment to combine life's two inevitables (Death & Taxes)into one neat smelly package.
I think the new Egyptian law is sort of thoughtful and heartwarming. Thsi will give the wives one final experience to enjoy sex without breathing goat/garlic/coffee/"haven't brushed my teeth in 47 years" breath.
ReplyDeleteAnd BS Footprint is right. BO is fully aware that most folks will be prepared to dodge this tax (just like in the old days), but knows that many will NOT be prepared. He could give a rats ass if the kids have to sell the family farm.
@Suzy- There's absolutely no defense for Estate Taxes. Once you've paid appropriate income or other taxes on your wealth, it should be yours to do whatever you want with...including dying while still having a bunch of it tied up in a small business or family farm.
ReplyDeleteAs you say, the current policy discourages people from saving money, or building their finances. But of course, every activity which requires self-reliance and helps foster independence from the government is now discouraged.
@BS Footprint- Buffett will have all of his worldly goods in a legal trust which will outlive him; a bit of lawyerly hocus pocus which essentially says that an individual owns "nothing," but is the administrator over a one-man corporation that just happens to own all of the assets which used to belong to that individual. So taxes get avoided, and lawyers are well fed. But not everyone has a lawyer on staff to help them win the battle of wits with Washington. And no one should need a lawyer to do so.
@Proof- That's exactly what Paul Harvey would say. And oh, how I miss him saying it...
@RandyS- You're right that the battles wage back and forth, and lawyers are the ones who win no matter what.
"The Planet of the Red Tape Hog-Troughers" sounds good. And I love the idea that it would have a more downbeat ending than the two films you cite. Yikes! Better plan on serving Prozac with the popcorn.
@Angry Hoosier Dad- Romney sure as shootin' won't campaign on anything that smells like a tax break for people who've amassed one million dollars, but I hope it can be worked into his first term when the heat can be spread around.
And I think your thoughtful explanation of the Egyptian law makes a lot of sense. Depending on how high the husband lifts the burqa, it might not be immediately noticeable that his unmoving wife is not merely pining for the fjords but has, in fact, joined the choir eternal.
@My Dog Brewski- You make me wonder how many "dead" wives are crawling out of their shallow graves after sunset and running away.
@Flyboy- "EWwwww?" There you go, being all ethnocentric. Haven't you heard that all cultures are equal, and they're all beautiful? And while we find the act distasteful, we should look on the bright side: when exercising his husbandly right, one of these guys might accidentally discover CPR.
@Colby- When you put it that way, I think dead sex sounds pretty good.
And per the tax question, the people who get caught will be the ones who can least afford it. Because Obama isn't, and never has been, interested in "fairness." He's interested in taking and spending as much money as he can. And like the gasping, grunting, garlic-breathed lover, he doesn't care if he gets what he wants from the living or the dead.
@RandyS, you are correct. Also, expect a rash of more "Paris Hiltons" in society, as the elderly start to mindlessly spew off their assets early to their progeny to avoid the inevitable tax.
ReplyDeleteAs for Egypt: Looks like they voted for "Hope & Change" too, and now, like those who did so here 4 years ago, they are discovering what that really meant. Good luck to them on that.
Sigh. Øbama's policies makes one long for death.... Until now. You see? It's all good. The Suicide Hotlines weren't working, so Øbama has solved the problem by making death repugnant, too! It's all good!
ReplyDeleteNow, as for those Egyptians, and Islam in general: if the Qu'ran's sexual focus is not enough to tell you that Mohammed was nothing but a sick bastard with a literary bent... Sensibilities vary, I guess. All the way down to "none".
"the minimum age for marriage is being lowered to 14, women will no longer have rights to education or employment, and husbands will now be legally able to have sex with their dead wives for up to six hours following death"
ReplyDeleteExplain to me again how the republicans are waging war on women...
@FlyBoy - "Death and Taxes" - LOL!
(BTW - given today's theme, your name can be interpreted in a very unfortunate way.)
@John the Econ- Millionaires giving money "gifts" to their kids to avoid taxes is a common loophole of the sort that Obama keeps saying needs to be closed. Which makes it so amusing that Barack and Michelle "gifted" their daughters with $48,000 in tax-sheltered cash last year, according to their own tax returns.
ReplyDelete@Emmentaler- You can run (and die) but you can't hide. And regarding the situation in Egypt, I personally have some problems with any theology which involves itself in the etiquette of beastiality.
@CenTexTim- You're right; that's a war on women. Only this is one that Barack Obama supported.
This is just another example of oppression of Muslim women. Everybody knows that it takes over 6 hours for rigor mortis to set in. It will be illegal for the widow to boink by the time the stiff is stiff.
ReplyDeleteFreddie Sykes
@ CenTexTim and Stilton -- It is extremely frustrating whenever I have brought up in conversation/debate with admitted feminists and illiberals the abjectly atrocious status and treatment of women in these societies. The response I invariably get is that wimmyn in the USA are their first concern, the travails of an Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an acid-in-the-face Pakistani, a burned-alive-in-school girl in Afghanistan hardly registers with them. They are either a] truly unconcerned, or b] terrified of pointing an accusatory finger at the Islamist neanderthals that perpetrate these atrocities. I think it is both. Western women know they can whine and whinge about non-issues confronting them and their liberated sisters because it is safe. The hypocrisy and double-standard is breathtaking.
ReplyDelete@Freddie Sykes- Not to mention that getting the husband to, uh, rigidify in a useful way would involve the use of popsicle sticks and scotch tape.
ReplyDelete@Gang of One- It's like the old joke about the drunk looking for his car keys under a street lamp. "Is this where you dropped them?" someone asked. "No, but the light's better here." Our domestic "feminists" don't want to address the real problems of real women in the real world. Nope, they concentrate on the USA, and getting free birth control, equal pay for women who DON'T have equal job experience, and forcing fire departments to hire women who can't carry a victim out of harm's way.
They focus on nearly non-existent problems here because it's easy to do so. And, outside of the satisfaction of whining in a shrill and annoying way, utterly pointless.
@Gang of One, the irony is that through the '90s, many feminists actually were concerned about the plight of women in the Mid-East. In fact, I recall several PBS & network news specials regarding issues such as the "forced clitorectomies" that women and female children are forced to go through in many countries. "Mainstream" feminist groups were universally aghast at such practices.
ReplyDeleteStrangely, that all changed after 9/11.
It's just another example of how mainstream feminism is wholly owned by the Democratic left. The Democrats cannot, under any circumstances allow any group any ideological commonality with any other group or ideology. And certainly, the oppression of an entire gender could not be allowed to be used as a justification for military action.
So the "sisters" gladly allow their oppressed counterparts to suffer under virtual slavery, all in the name of "peace".
Sick.
@ John the Econ -- Spot. Phookin'. On.
ReplyDeleteBefore the Islamists pushed our back to the wall, the AngloFems had no compunction about calling out the dastardly deeds foisted on their foreign sisters -- because it was still a man-made job, no pun intended. Now that the Islamists do worse than the old standard Christian Auto da Fe-nics, these same tired old hags have lost their stomach for confrontation. Why do we men still want to have sex with females if this is what their vocalists sing?
The death tax doesn't bother the born-into-money socialists, because they see it as a way to assuage their guilt over having inherited all their money. They think that that's how EVERYONE gets their money, and they want their antecedents to pay. If a few family farms get sold to pay for the government's greed, it's fine--for the socialists. They're not the ones going to lose their livelihoods!
ReplyDelete@John the Econ- Great summary.
ReplyDelete@Gang of One- It's way easier to criticize people who don't cut your head off, even if the criticisms become embarrassingly pointless.
As far as why men are physically inclined to enjoy the company of women, I assure you it has nothing to do with the ravings of the feminist fringe types.
@JustaJeepGuy- It really does seem like the Left is pathologically unable to accept the idea that anyone might amass wealth through hard work over a long period of time. And keep in mind that since every dollar in someone's estate was already taxed during their lifetime - likely at a rate around 35% - that the additional 55% means that these people are being taxed 90% on the dollar.
Think of that: a lifetime of work, and Uncle Sam gets 90¢ for every dime you're allowed to leave to your family. Frankly, I'd rather have my family inherit everything and in return let the government have sex with my corpse for six hours. Especially if I died of something highly contagious.
1) it's not a taxation issue, it's a spending issue.
ReplyDeletePeriod
The End
The US, as we know it, is rapidly approaching 'upside down' - just like your house. If you took 100% of GDP it would not pay off the debt. That's not "profit" "wages" "Income" "dividends" or such trivial crap.
It
Is
EVERY thing
And it would not be enough.
And, it's getting worse.
It is the SPENDING, stupid.
It is the STUPID SPENDING!!!
Period, The End
Of EVERYTHING
Think about it - it is the ultimate (as in LAST) "inconvenient truth".
Preach it - all need to know - even those 40% jackasshatted wanktards who STILL support this SCOAMF and his spendilicious ways. Yes, W was bad, very bad, no argument. Obama is over twice as bad. He owns a full 1/3 of the gross debt. W another 1/3. W did it in 8 years, O in just over 3.
It Is The Spending, Stupid.
Preach it.
2) The Egyptian women will hardly (no pun intended, for a change) know the difference. And, w/ "mandatory clitorectomy" or Female Genital Mutilation, as it USED to be known, neither will the men. So many Islamic woman are utterly physically unable to respond, it's no wonder so many Islamic men turn to sheep (well, that and they reportedly don't mind the breath)
3) Not finding any direct references that I'm willing to link to, but plenty of indirect that suggest that after having sex w/ a goat, camel or donkey, "it's urine, feces and milk become contaminated, and it should be killed and sold as soon as possible. Do not sell it in our own village, but a neighboring village should be fine"/ Ayatollah Khomeini
EWWWWW!
4) eat the poor, or eat the rich? Eat the poor - a) there's more of them, and they're better marbled b) you'll never run out of "poor" to eat. At some point, we're ALL "rich"...
Planet of the Red Tape - I think Marvin the android (Life - dont' TALK to me about LIFE) is probably Eternal Ruler there...
Stilt - +1 on estate taxes, Paul Harvey, and "lawyers winning".. -1 on O and "taking and spending" - per a campaign conversation a year (ish) ago (w/ Joe the Plumber?) "it's not about raising revenue, it's about re-distribution" - he's not out to 'get' as much as he can, he's out to steal as much as he can, beating winners up in the process, regardless of cost. I think he truly hates folks who have honestly (?) earned (?) their massive cash reserves. As opposed to he and The Mooch, who have pretty much scammed, grifted, or outright scammed their fortunes...
CTTim - +2, "war on women" "fly boy"
Stilt, +1 on drunk jokes, especially when they *illuminate* a point...
>sigh<
ReplyDeleteits not "it's"
and
"scammed, grifted, or outright stolen" as opposed to "scammed, grifted, or outright scammed"
**PIMF** {Preview Is My Friend - especially "after hours")
>sight<
@Pete(Detroit)- I enjoyed your post; it was darn near "free verse." And you're absolutely right: it IS the spending that's the problem. Everything else is a subset of (or distraction from) that single key nation-destroying problem.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Egyptian women and clitorectomies, it's interesting that a culture which seems to put so much stock (and, er, livestock) in sex does so much to make sure that it won't be pleasurable - or even tolerable - for anyone except the male. This makes it clear that it's an exercise of power and dominance...and I'd guess the "nail your wife while she's still warm" law reflects the idea that the guys are giving their wives a reminder that they're still boss, even when the women have gone to meet their maker.
Regarding who should get eaten, I'd suggest that the poor probably make for larger portions, meaning you don't need to throw as many in the stewpot to feed a community. Therefore, eating the poor is the more humane, life-preserving choice.
And I'll gently refuse to accept the -1 for my comment about Obama grabbing all he can, because he does. BUT, I completely agree with you (and I've said here repeatedly) that his goal isn't really to get his hands on money or even redistribute it as much as it is to simply punish the rich. Obama is more strongly motivated by hate than anything else.
@stilt right on; 'punish the rich'. I'd even go one step farther and open it up to punish America, period, keeping in mind the usual fate of the useful-mob bit players in socialist overthrow. Pushing redistribution is the perfect vehicle for that in a culture being deliberately dumbed-down to unreasoning covetousness.
ReplyDeleteI can see Nil being enticed into this sleeper-type role and this course of destroying the US by ol' evil dinosoros georgei, offering Re dis tribution as New, Improved Retribution, now with added "Dis" built in! Act now, and Dis the Constitution with impunity!!
@A Nonny Mouse- There's no question in my mind that beyond punishing the rich, Obama dislikes America and wants to destroy it in its traditional form - the better to rebuild something more to his liking.
ReplyDeleteREADERS- Since we've been discussing women's rights here, I can't resist sharing this fundraising pitch I received from Obama's campaign today. Here are some highlights:
ReplyDelete"There are a lot of big decisions in this election -- but there's one that stands out: We're going to be deciding how our country treats women.
Whether we're allowed to make our own decisions about our health and our plans for the future.
Will you support the only party looking out for women by making a donation today?"
Why in the name of all that's holy would ANY woman think she's going to be well served by a party that happily took $1 million from a man who refers to them as c*nts?
@Stilton, indeed.
ReplyDeleteGo on any college campus, or listen to any "women's" conference and you hear the same meme; America is hostile and oppressive for women.
Compared to where I am not sure.
Of course, we know better. Nonsense like this and that spewed by Obama is for the consumption of those who know little of the real world, and nothing of what is the norm beyond our borders.
In fact, I'd argue that America is far better for women than even in in supposedly morally-superior Europe. The fallout from last year's DSK scandal was stark proof of that; where the political and media establishment actually supported Dominique Strauss-Kahn after other scandals were exposed. There was no question about it; if you were a woman and wanted to get ahead in the DSK empire, you had to sleep with him, and the European political and media establishment endorsed this! Even some of his women protege's didn't seem to think it was all a big deal! It's just how it works there.
Of course here in America, even "consensual" relationships between bosses are condemned. And if you actually do get mistreated by a higher-up, you may have won the lottery.
So by Obama standards, women are "oppressed" in America mainly because I'm currently not forced to pay for someone else's recreational sex? The horror! What a dark place we live.
I think some Egyptian women may find the new law a bit hard to swallow...
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it could create a whole new category of pornography: DMILFs.
Since it's Sunday and it's slow here, how about a little movie review?
ReplyDeleteI got around to watching the biopic on Margaret Thatcher last week, “The Iron Lady”. It’s another prime example of how Hollywood is utterly incapable to making an honest or decent movie about conservative politicians or issues.]
The movie uses the well-worn “flashback” motif, starting out with a present-day Margaret Thatcher, aged and suffering from moderate dementia. She spends most of the movie confused, and talking with her long-deceased husband Denis. The movie then flashes back and forth to earlier points in her life, from her beginnings in politics until her ouster in the early ‘90s.
The performances are excellent. But this movie is bad. I guess the fact that it was nominated for several academy awards should have been enough of a warning.
It’s not just that I have a problem with the ethics that allows the portrayal of a very aged and speculatively somewhat demented Margaret Thatcher, who is still alive, by the way. The bigger problem with this movie is that roughly 3/4ths of it is the fictionalized, demented Margaret, with somewhat flat, intermittent & perfunctory flashbacks to actual events thrown in.
In other words, instead of spending most of this film’s 105 minutes on actual and well-documented historic events and the real life of one of the 20th century’s most successful and influential women, this movie instead chooses to follow a fictional confused and babbling woman as she wandering about her apartment.
Why is this? It’s probably because the leftist political values of Hollywood are completely at odds with those of Margaret Thatcher. Not only that, but the reality and success of Margaret Thatcher is a knife in the side of those leftist values. A solid hour and ¾ spent just on her actual life and achievements at restoring Britain from the malaise brought on by 30 years of socialism would have been too much for anyone in Hollywood to contemplate, much less accurately relate with any enthusiastic accuracy.
As Americans, we tend to think of this period in history in terms of the Reagan era. However, as bad as the economic situation was in the US in 1979, it was a multitude worse in Britain. By the 1970s, most of Britain’s major industries had been nationalized for decades. The labor unions literally held the nation hostage. Strikes were rampant, end entire sectors of the economy were regularly shut-down until the Marxists running the unions got what they wanted. Long-running coal strikes literally had the lights going out, and took out the previous conservative government. Unemployment was high. British industry produced products that where both overpriced and shoddy. Taxes discouraged investment and productivity. The economy was stagnant. Inflation was at 20%. The country was near broke, even having to borrow from the IMF as though it was a third-world country. National pride was non-existent. And there was absolutely no end in sight. Neither party had any answers to anything beyond more of the same. Thatcher’s Conservative Party was too scared and timid to do anything. Margaret Thatcher changed that.
continued...
...continued:
ReplyDeleteOn a political level, what Thatcher did in Britain was easily 10-times what Reagan did for America. She had far more damage to remediate, and she was far less compromising on her values leading the nation forward. Not only did she undo much of the socialism that had brought Britain to its knees, she restored respect for Britain internationally (especially through the Falklands War) and joined forces with Reagan to bring down the Soviet Union. She left a legacy of conservative success that simply could not be denied or ignored.
Her successful run of 11 ½ years only came to an end when people within her own party decided that they’d rather get a long with the liberals than continue with the reforms she had started.
The movie does perfunctorily show much of the malaise and her success over the Liberals and the unions at restoring free-market principles. Alas, you only get a few minutes of such successes. Before any threat of lingering too long on any single achievement, you are always brought back to the sad, old and demented Thatcher as she fictionally reminisces with her dead husband.
One could easily see how an accurate portrayal of the Thatcher story would make fans of the current Obama politic very uncomfortable; they have been ardently trying to impliment the kind of dismal policies that Thatcher saved Britain from. Within a few generations, socialism had brought one of the richest and most powerful nations on earth to the brink of fiscal and spiritual bankruptcy. A single woman who refused to sit down and shut up changed all of that with a set of unbending free market principles. She challenged not only the people in her party and on the other side of the isle, but the entire country. And they responded. The only thing that was able to stop her were the “squishies” in her own party and cabinet, who having tired of fighting for what was right, preferred to compromise and “get along” with the liberals. Britain has been on a slow-slide back to the ‘70s ever since. This is not a story the left wishes accurately told, or to have comparisons made.
Alas, as it’s portrayed here, they have little need to fear. She’s now a relic of the past, senile and wandering about her apartment talking with her dead husband.
Greaaat comments today...I saw that news item Thursday about sex with the dead wife; just shows you how self-centered Arab men are in every area.
ReplyDeleteI mentioned in a post earlier this week about a 'shift in thinking' that I have noticed in recent years. This is probably due to the fact that we now all live in a 'post-modern' age, where rational thought is fading away, and selfish, 'relevant' thought is taking its place. I know down through history there have always been those 'left-wing progressives' who would turn us into a socialist society if allowed, but during the 'modern' era, they were just shouted down. Seems as though this new way of thinking of things has given them the platform by which they think they just might make it happen; and, why not? It is the way they want it, and who is to say that what they are saying is wrong? After all, 'If I think it's right, it doesn't matter what anyone else says'.
@John the Econ- Well said; America's alleged "war on women" is laughable. Women here have already won the lottery - the arguments are just about how to divide the winnings.
ReplyDelete@Coon Tasty- Funny stuff, in a sick and perverted way. In other words, just to my taste.
@John the Econ- Wow, the whole "Movie Reviews from the Right" thing could be its own blog! I appreciate the review of "Iron Lady" because I haven't seen it, fearing that it would be exactly what you say it is. There was some quote from Meryl Streep in the initial publicity for the film, in which she said that she admired Thatcher but didn't agree with any of her politics. Oh? Really? So what did you admire, Meryl? Her fashion sense?
And of course the idea of making Thatcher's dementia the framing device for her life is unspeakably insulting. A pox on Streep and a pox on Hollywood.
By the way, my own dog is named "Maggie" as a tip of the chapeau to the great woman.
@Pryorguy- I also think that there is a significant shift in the way people think...and it's not a good one. There's almost a Zen of Idiocy, in which people immediately forget the past, have no ability to project their actions into the future, and spend "now" seeking entertainment and self-gratification. Mindlessness is now a goal and a lifestyle. And this unthinking mass of people can be easily fooled, because they're more plugged into social and mainstream media than what their own eyes, ears, and brains should be telling them.
It feels like the new norm is a "hive mentality," in which everyone is buzzing, everyone is jostling and jockeying, and everyone is busy - but no one actually has an idea why they're doing anything, or questioning the overall order and purpose of things.
It's Idiocracy without the funny.
@John the Econ - My wife recently expressed the desire to see that film and I refused, citing the grounds that it would be a Leftist propaganda piece designed to smear Baroness Thatcher's name, achievements and legacy, along the lines of Oliver Stone's defamatory "W."
ReplyDeleteI'm unsurprised to see that I was correct.
Also note that the one British program that Thatcher was not able to reign in was health care.
ReplyDeleteOnce the government owns health care, there is no turning it back. It will own it forever, until the ultimate collapse.
That is why killing ObamaCare is so important.
@Stilton: Streep admired about Thatcher what every feminist admires of such women: her power, and the fact that she attained it.
ReplyDeleteAbdulah: My fourth wife was especially 'cold' tonight.
ReplyDeleteMohammed: That is because she is dead you dumb ass.
Abdulah: We need to pass a law about this.
@Coon Tasty- I haven't been to a movie theater in quite awhile now. I'm simply not going to pay (and put up with a theater full of texting idiots) to be lectured by liberals - or blindsided by an unnecessary shot at conservatives. Apparently in the new Avengers superhero flick, there was a scene (happily left on the cutting room floor) when Captain America laments the decline of our country since his World War II days - specifically in our country's refusal to offer healthcare for everyone. No thanks.
ReplyDelete@John the Econ- Amen, brother.
@Emmentaler- Sad but true.
@Anonymous- This raises the question that, if your wife has been dead long enough to get cold, will the new law allow a bit of reheating to get her supple enough for play?
Typical of you Islamaphobes to attack this well-meant legislation. As everybody else knows, this is nothing but an attempt to protect the children and family livestock in those critical six hours between wives.
ReplyDelete