It's all about where you draw the line

Guy Puts up McCain/ Palin yard signs.

Within the hour, someone steals McCain/Palin yard signs.

Guy puts up new yard signs, and electrifies the suckers.

Hilarity ensues:

Things to note:

• The kid is holding an Obama/Biden sign in his other hand — the soft sign part, not the wire fame. Clearly he intends to swap signs.
• The kid’s daddy called the cops, claiming the kid just wanted to see how the sign was put together. Rrriiiight. Most likely daddy put the kid up to it.
• The police did not file any charges against the sign owner. Good for them.
• Shame they didn’t file charges against the sign stealer. Then again, he’s probably had enough charges for the day. (heh. “charges”)

But remember the narrative, folks — it’s Republicans who stifle free speech.

Got this via email:

Found these over at Treacher’s place:

In recent years I quite frequently hear references comparing Democrats to that hero of western folklore: Robin Hood. We’re told that so-and-so congressman, “like a modern day Robin Hood”, wants to “take from the rich and give to the poor”. It’s false comparison — a bum rap. Robin was framed.

Leftist (i.e. Democrat) policies frequently are targeted at the emotions — the arguments supporting them talk a lot about “fairness” and “caring”, and how they’re doing it “for the children”, or the poor, or for the victims of some Bad Thing. Then when anyone (e.g. Republicans) suggest that maybe that policy isn’t such a good idea, they obviously (or so the argument goes) don’t care about children, or fairness, or whatever “victim” group benefits from the great new social policy. The heroic comparison to the esteemed Mr. Hood plays directly into this model.

And as for Robin Hood? Go back and reread the story. He wasn’t robbing random rich people; he was stealing money from the tax collectors — the government.

Just got an interesting email. It’s one of those “pass this arround to everyone you know!!!1!” kind of things, but this one has the odd distinction of being, apparently, both timely and relevant.

Here’s the deal — in many parts of the country, the ballot has a box you can mark/punch that is “straight ticket” for whatever party — that is, you mark that box and you’re voting for that party for all offices on the ballot.

Simply put: Don’t use it. Your vote for President might not be counted.

It is perfectly okay to vote for all one party if you choose, but go down the ballot and vote for each office separately — do not mark the “straight ticket” box.

Why? In some states, marking “straight ticket” includes a vote for president, and in some states, it does not. To further confuse things, if “straight ticket” does include a vote for president, then separately marking a selection for president can be counted as a double vote, and thus invalidate your vote for that office.

Sigh.

So… feel free to copy this and email it to everyone you know.

More info at Snopes.

As bad as I think Obama will be (if he SUCCEEDS in what he wants to do — that is, if he is “good” at being President…) I would probably be okay with him winning if it were not for the probability of multiple SCOTUS appointments — because if those turn out bad they don’t end in four (or even eight) years, they will significantly affect the country for at least a generation.

Obama has openly said that he will seek to appoint judges who rule according to their own sense of “fairness”, rather than what the Constitution says. Such judges place everyone else in the position of never truly knowing what the law is until they are told in the courtroom. The whole point of “rule of law” is that all cases are (in theory) treated similarly, AND that people can know what the law is, and base their decisions on that. If you get sued or arrested, and the judge is going to make up the law on the spot regardless of what the existing law says (because he doesn’t deem the written law “fair” enough) then you can never truly act without fear of criminal charges. It’s judicial tyranny, and it’s incredibly destructive to a free society.

I would like to draw your attention to Senate bill S-190, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, sponsored by Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE] on January 26, 2005, and co-sponsored by Senators Elizabeth Dole [R-NC], John Sununu [R-NH], and… John McCain [R-AZ].

Simply put, this was a law that would have put further oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which might have averted, and certainly would have lessened the severity of, the financial crisis and the housing crash.

John McCain sponsored it. Bush supported it. Obama voted against it.

I’m just sayin’.

This is all kinds of awesome. Possibly my favorite political piece of the entire year. I’m not going to quote it, just go read: Joe The Plumber: American with a Capital A

I’ll plan to do a follow-up post later this evening….

Reproduced in its (almost) entirety^* from Iowahawk:

We’ve all witnessed a lot of insanity in American politics over the last few years. Up until the last few days, none of it has seriously bothered me; hey, just more grist for the satire mill. But after witnessing the media’s blitzkreig on Joe ‘the Plumber’ Wurzelbacher, I can only muster anger, and no small amount of fear.

Politicians — Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, et al. — obviously have to put up with some rude, nasty shit, but it’s right there in the jobs description. Joe the Plumber is different. He was a guy tossing a football with his kid in the front yard of his $125,000 house when a politician picked him out as a prop for a 30 second newsbite for the cable news cameras. Joe simply had the temerity to speak truth (or, if you prefer, an uninformed opinion) to power, for which the politico-media axis apparently determined that he must be humiliated, harassed, smashed, destroyed. The viciousness and glee with which they set about the task ought to concern anyone who still cares about citizen participation, and freedom of speech, and all that old crap they taught in Civics class before politics turned into Narrative Deathrace 3000, and Web 2.0 turned into Berlin 1932.0.

Godwin’s Law! you say? if the jackboot fits, wear it.

If it’s meta-memes and meta-meta-narratives these media headlice want, so be it. I hope you will join me in expressing a simple bit of solidarity with this guy, Spartacus style. I AM JOE. I am a Wal Mart schlub in flyover country who changes my own oil and unclogs drains without a license. I smoke and drink beer and toss the football in the front yard with my kid, and I figure I can fend my way without handouts from some Magic Messiah’s candy bags. Most everyone in my family and most everyone I grew up with is another Joe, and if you screw with them, you screw with me.

Are you a Joe? Say it proud. Leave it on every goddamn newspaper comment section and online forum. Let these pressroom and online thugs know you won’t stay silent when they try to destroy the life of a private citizen for speaking his mind — because for every one of them, there are a million Joe Wurzelbachers. And for that we should all be thankful.

Say it, Brother!

We’ve all played the game where you sit back and answer the question — “If you found a genie in a bottle, and were granted one wish — what would it be?” Well, here’s my variation on the game. Would you like to play?

The Question:

If you could be President for five minutes, and had the power and authority to pass a single law — any law — what law would you pass?

The Rules:

1. The law can only do one thing. It can perhaps be a far-reaching thing, but no “I would pass a law that bans/affirms abortion and ends/increases welfare and ends/wins the Iraq War and….” — that’s cheating. You can take one idea and make it the law of the land.
2. Be specific. Don’t say “I would end poverty”. What one law would you pass to try to end poverty? A $100/hr. minimum wage? Government-provided jobs? What?
3. Be realistic. No laws saying “Nobody will get sick ever again.” You’re President, not God. No magic.
4. Assume your law will last. Unless you explicitly put in and end date or sunset provisions of some sort, assume your law will not be negated or overturned for.. say… ten years at least.

Got all that? Okay, with the rules being laid out, here is my law:

The Charity Identification Act of 2008

Henceforth all federal government handouts — that is, any federal program that transfers money, service, or assets in any form to people or organizations that have not explicitly earned said transfer, or any such transfers by extra-governmental organizations (e.g. private companies) if such transfers are required by law or mandate — shall have the word “Charity” appended to the beginning of the name of the program, and to the name of all such transfers. E.g. — “Charity Welfare”, “Charity Emergency Room Care”, “Charity housing subsidies”.

Reductions in fees or taxes actually paid are not counted as “transfers” under this law^* — e.g. reduction in the amount of taxes due by individuals or organizations is not a “transfer” for the purposes of this law. However, “refund” payments greater than the receiver’s actual tax burden shall be included — e.g. “Charity Tax Rebates” to those who pay no taxes but receive a rebate.

Such transfers that are given in exchange for, or in consideration of, military service are exempted, e.g. the “G.I. Bill” or veterans’ health care.

Okay, that’s mine. What’s yours?

(You can play along in comments below or post at your own blog. If the latter, please link back to this original post. Thanks.)

Straight from the plumber’s mouth:

PM: You’re a plumber, and you’re looking to buy your own plumbing business?

Joe Wurzelbacher: Correct.

PM: Would that plumbing business employ other people or would it just employ you?

JW: Eventually it would employ other people. Right now it’s a two man shop and it’s got a very good footprint and a very good reputation, so eventually I would want to put other people out there. I don’t want to get huge because if you get too big your quality goes, but I definitely wouldn’t mind having two good plumbers out there with me working.

PM: So a potential tax increase – how do you see that affecting your ability to hire more people to work with you at your company? [...]

JW: Essentially what that would do is, I’d have to see how much money is available after everything else is paid, to see if I can one, afford a new vehicle, two, outfit it, and then three, pay a good salary. And if I’m being taxed too much, one of those three things is going to get shorted. One, I won’t be able to buy as good a good vehicle or I won’t stock it as well, or the guy I hire – if I’m able to hire somebody – is not going to make as much as he should.

JW: [...]I believe in working for what I get. I don’t want to say it’s a handout, but essentially that’s what it comes down to. You’re going to tax someone else more that’s been working hard to fulfill the American Dream and you’re gonna give it to other people who – I’m not saying they don’t work as hard, but I’m sure some of them don’t – and I don’t think it’s right just to give it to them or reduce taxes on their part and hike it up on my part like a teeter totter to bring it back even. So no, that wouldn’t – well, let me rephrase that. It would appeal to me because back then I was struggling. That kind of thing appeals to me – anybody wants to cut my taxes, I look at it very seriously, it’s like, it sounds great. But you gotta see what the other hand is doing too.

I love this guy. It’s funny, but this guy might just be the game changer. McCain should put this guy on the stage, bigtime.

Go read the whole thing.

Hat tip: Cold Fury