"Buffett Tax" is a nickname, not the actual name for the tax itself, again, based on Warren Buffett saying that it's not right that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
Looking at the members of the tea party, they probably think it's actually a Buffet tax and they'll have to pay more when they go to Sizzler.
"Buffett Tax" is a nickname, not the actual name for the tax itself, again, based on Warren Buffett saying that it's not right that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
Looking at the members of the tea party, they probably think it's actually a Buffet tax and they'll have to pay more when they go to Sizzler.
Would that be the force that causes old people from Texas and punk kids in college to unite as one?
As far as the protest, I think that the idea was sound by the execution was flawed. They just get in my way going to work in Battery Park. I think you need to have a more organized, more performance arty type of concept to really make waves, especially when what you are protesting is kind of nebulous.
Most of those guys seem like caricatures of protesters.
That was my impression. It looked like the kind of protest you'd stage to parody a stupid protest.
What if someone did? Sending agent provocateurs into peaceful crowds or groups to instigate violence, justifying marginalizing and cracking down on them, has a long and proud tradition but with the proliferation of cameras and video recording devices there is the risk of getting caught.
What if, in the YouTube age, maybe you're better off taking advantage of Poe's Law and sending in Agent Retard-ateurs to justify marginalizing and ridiculing crowds or groups. There's no unsightly violence to make people angry and it keeps moderates who would otherwise consider joining the group on the side lines. Lefties are already trying to do it at Tea Party rallies.
There's already astroturfing to make causes seem more popular than they actually are (see Tea Party again). Why not astroturfing to make causes seem more stupid?
I was pretty surprised as well. He's arguing for the middle class and saying the richest should pay their fair share. Did you read the comments? The readers went ape-shit calling it propaganda and they turned on him fiercely.
I was pretty surprised as well. He's arguing for the middle class and saying the richest should pay their fair share. Did you read the comments? The readers went ape-shit calling it propaganda and they turned on him fiercely.
Perhaps Fox News is shifting their message because the number of viewers that can afford cable is shrinking fast. :P
As if we didn't know he was bat-crap loco and a lying sack of poo, turns out Perry's claims about towns along the Mexican border being lawless hellholes full of murder and drugs is entirely false.
Also, saw this sign downtown recently, in an antiques store window:
I've seen signs like that all over the place. It's nothing new. People forget that it was policies during his terms that got us into this mess to begin with.
People willfully deny (in order to obfuscate their own feelings of guilt) that it was policies during his terms that got us into this mess to begin with.
If we let the idiots vote, we'll be at the mercy of the idiots. If we don't let the idiots vote, we'll be at the mercy of whoever decides what constitutes an "idiot."
If we let the idiots vote, we'll be at the mercy of the idiots. If we don't let the idiots vote, we'll be at the mercy of whoever decides what constitutes an "idiot."
If we let the idiots vote, we'll be at the mercy of the idiots. If we don't let the idiots vote, we'll be at the mercy of whoever decides what constitutes an "idiot."
They have always failed once the benevolent dictator is gone.
Maybe some sort of linear succession, for when the benevolent dictator is gone? For instance, it's logical to assume that he would bring his children up in a respectable manner, so they may be able to become the next leaders.
I'll go ahead and email Fox News with our Liberal agenda.
They have always failed once the benevolent dictator is gone.
Hey, the Roman Empire managed to have five benevolent dictators in a row! Then everything went to shit.
And when we say shit, we don't mean, "shit as in awry." We mean, "shit as in caused several following centuries of lost knowledge and mindless violence and feudal wars."
Did you read the comments? The readers went ape-shit calling it propaganda and they turned on him fiercely.
That always surprises me. Do they not realize that he is arguing for better lives for people like them, most likely?
Aspiration Bias. They want to be in the position of the rich guys some day, and when they get there they want things to be as awesome as possible for them. Not realizing, of course, that it's far more likely they'll never get there in the first place.
Aspiration Bias. They want to be in the position of the rich guys some day, and when they get there they want things to be as awesome as possible for them. Not realizing, of course, that it's far more likely they'll never get there in the first place.
Yeah, but these are policies that will make it easier for them to live comfortably and happily without necessarily being rich. Isn't that what the money ultimately is for anyway? To be able to let you live a comfortable, happy life and provide for yourself and loved ones?
Comments
I think you need to have a more organized, more performance arty type of concept to really make waves, especially when what you are protesting is kind of nebulous.
Most of those guys seem like caricatures of protesters.
What if, in the YouTube age, maybe you're better off taking advantage of Poe's Law and sending in Agent Retard-ateurs to justify marginalizing and ridiculing crowds or groups. There's no unsightly violence to make people angry and it keeps moderates who would otherwise consider joining the group on the side lines. Lefties are already trying to do it at Tea Party rallies.
There's already astroturfing to make causes seem more popular than they actually are (see Tea Party again). Why not astroturfing to make causes seem more stupid?
I'm half serious here.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/19/jimmy-buffett-rule/#content
Did you read the comments? The readers went ape-shit calling it propaganda and they turned on him fiercely.
If we don't let the idiots vote, we'll be at the mercy of whoever decides what constitutes an "idiot."
I'm not sure what to do.
I'll go ahead and email Fox News with our Liberal agenda.