Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Handicapping the race... of the Handicapped



September 22, 2012 – Comments (18)

They say you should never blog drunk.  Allow me to retort.  Then when shall I ever blog? 

A friend recently wrote to me:

"David, a guy work just said to me that the economy is a finite pie. If the some people get more, that leaves less for the rest of us.  Is that not the dumbest thing you've ever heard?"

Well, it's pretty dumb. Dumbest?  I don't know.  Whenever you are have to compare the economy to baked goods, you are in trouble.  Hillary Clinton once said, "The market knows everything about price and nothing about value." That was really dumb too.  My friend's co-worker can be excused.  We are going to assume that he hasn't been prepped for public "leadership" his whole life.  To Cankles Clinton, on the other hand, I cannot be so kind.

Value determines price in the market.  Actors enter the market with rankings of value in their head.  These rankings are completely subjective.  They are determined by the ends that the actors want satisfied the most urgently.  I know that Billary cannot follow such an easy chain of reasoning, but I hope you can.  Due to these value scales, exchanges happen when unequal values are encountered.  You want my shirt more than you want $5.  I want your $5 more than the shirt I just spilled some wine on.  Mainstream economists think you can equate value - make it all mathematical and pretty.  Mainstream economists are lunatics.  Clearly we have unequal values that just created an exchange that created a price.  

Why is this so hard for Cankles to grasp?  I don't know.  Meanwhile, her fetish friendly husband recently came across my air waves (they're mine!) to tell two whopping lies.  In a commercial that is being run for the teenage-killer's re-election campaign, Cigar Bill says:

1. The Republicans want de-regulation

2. De-regulation caused this mess in the first place

Wow. Just wow.  

The word "de-regulation" appears to have the same affect on Democrat voters that "islamo-fascist" has on Republicans.  It just gets them all worked up like a horny teenager.

What a dupe job.  Classic.  The priests of the State.  You gotta hand it to them.  They work the phoney-baloney Left/Right Blue State/Red State paradigm to a tee, don't they?  How many of your friends are updating their Facebook status with Obama and Romney support messages?  I have one that says he'll de-friend anyone that "Likes" Mitt Romney.

Oh how they divide us over meaningless nonsense.  

There was NO deregulation.  The Glass-Steagall Act was not repealed. It was "replaced".  Replaced by other regulations.  There were more regulations in place in 2008 than at ANY TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY.  More money was spent on regulations in 2008 than at ANY TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY.  "De-regulation" is a ridiculous line of argumentation. Stop. Just stop. Come up with something else. Please. You'll appear so much smarter.

Repeal and replace. Hmmm, where have I seen that recently?  Any supporters of the guy that's going to get 10 electoral votes if he's lucky want to chime in on that?  Anyone? No?  I didn't think so.

Which brings me to the next point.  To say that a Romney administration would usher in an era of free markets and de-regulation is not just wrong. It's a lie.  Cigar Bill knows that Romney has NO intention of any such thing.  C'mon Slick Willie.  This is the Internet Age.  You know, we can look this sh*t up and see how ridiculous you are.

But that's just it, right there. This election is not about us.  It's about them.  It's about the Establishment.  Establishment Murderer A and Establishment I Would Be An Even Bigger Murderer B!!!  It's for old, old white people that don't know the differnce between TCP and UDP.  It's the end of the Worst Generation.  Those ridiculously carb loaders with swollen ankles and bad skin.  The uninformed Worst Generation that views politics as some sort of rooting interest.  That repeats slogans spoon fed to them as if they were passages of the Scripture.

I prefer 4 more years of Establishment A to 8 more years of Establishment B.  If a gun is to my head.  Otherwise, I'll pass. Thanks.

David Burns

18 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On September 22, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Valyooo (39.36) wrote:

The funny thing is, they need two parties to work  if it were just one party, there would be no "well yeah what I am doing sucks but its better than that guy!"


Also, I find it amusing that people think republicans = free market.  When did a free market restrict paying for an abortion? 

Report this comment
#2) On September 22, 2012 at 10:21 PM, awallejr (37.00) wrote:

Probably one of the rare times we are going to agree.  But I never blog drunk, only when I am "dipsy doodled."

Report this comment
#3) On September 22, 2012 at 10:56 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (85.98) wrote:

^ LOL.

Report this comment
#4) On September 23, 2012 at 12:52 AM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

You think that's bad David?  I saw this ad on TV a couple days ago and my head nearly exploded.


Yes, that's a pro-Obama ad bragging about all the tariffs he put in place on Chinese goods.

Report this comment
#5) On September 23, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Mary953 (84.14) wrote:

I just have to disagree with you on one point, David.  Vote!  Please, Vote!  For Heaven's sake, you know more, study more, think things through more than 99% of the people that I have run across on the Internet.  This site is the most intelligent of any that I ever visit and even here, you stand out!

Yes, the parties are similar in their approach to the job.  When you find a good person, you keep that person, but mostly, the D or R means little in how they act.

There is some scary stuff out there if you do look back.  Take a look at Rep Obama's comments on redistributing the wealth in this country.  It is not being reported on, but it is straight out socialism.

This country only works if the people care enough to educate themselves and use the power to vote.  Please do.  (Rant over - sorry) 

Report this comment
#6) On September 23, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Mary953 (84.14) wrote:

This site is, of course, TMF.

Report this comment
#7) On September 23, 2012 at 5:06 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


I respect your opinion:

This country only works if the people care enough to educate themselves and use the power to vote.  Please do. 

1) Are you certain that using the power to vote is how we make this country great?

2) Given the choices above, is there any argument you can provide that would show it is worthwhile to vote for one of these candidates?


Report this comment
#8) On September 23, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Valyooo (39.36) wrote:

What if I want to vote for nobody, because I don't want a President? I can't do that, so I don't vote.

Report this comment
#9) On September 23, 2012 at 10:02 PM, awallejr (37.00) wrote:

Well after having watched 60 minutes tonight I will probably be voting for your guy David only because the one thing I appreciated about Ron Paul was his consistency and being straightforeward, despite my disagreement with his platform.

As for 60 minutes could you throw anymore softballs than they did?

Romney was basically all rhetoric.  When asked for specifics as in the "devil is in the details" he responds  about Angels and job growth.  What the heck was that.  Just say he wants to create jobs and that is good enough?  Hey Mitt, stop playing used car salesman and talk "devil" to me.

He did say something specific about medicaid.  So here is his REAL plan: he wants to throw the problem onto the states and give them x dollars which will only grow inflation or inflation+1.  And then he smiles.  See what he just did?  Well first he didn't say what rate of inflation (core or cpi), but with that aside all he did was fix the Fed's cost.  Since he acknowledges a savings he has to acknowledge that there will then be shortfalls.  But he threw that problem onto the states so his job is done (just like Bain firing people and not concerned with what happens to those people afterwards).  Then he smugly says we will use a "means test" without defining it,  smiling that higher income people would share less.  WOW what a break, Bill Gates won't be able to use SS or medicaire at the same rate as some poor average Joe.

The guy signed Grover Norquist's pledge.  Case closed for me.  He has now committed himself to a piece of paper held by a lobbyist instead of committing himself to ALL Americans.

Obama actually did a decent job.  I still won't vote for him mainly because I felt he wasted his opportunity, but I do cut him some slack in that his first term really was shortened purposefully by the Republicans and King Grover since the summer of last year. 

Report this comment
#10) On September 23, 2012 at 10:15 PM, awallejr (37.00) wrote:

"the Fed's" means the federal Government here, just to avoid confusion.

Report this comment
#11) On September 23, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Mary953 (84.14) wrote:

Call it enlightened self-interest if you wish.  My husband and I have worked for nearly a half century.  Retirement is now for me, 6 months away for him.  Check youtube with search terms "Obama wealth redistribution" and you will find a number of speeches spanning his state senate race to his presidential race in which he says he is for wealth redistribution.  He is welcomed to give his money to whom ever he wants for what ever he wants.  I want that same courtesy.  There are enough liberals who will support Planned Parenthood and enough conservatives who will support whatever the equivalent right to life groups are.  For my part, I prefer St Jude's, the Children's Hospital, and a handful of very good organizations that work.  When the government takes your money to redistribute it, they don't ask where you want it to go.

Second, I have enough friends (and some family) who have returned from the Middle East after living there to know that the attributes we see as friendship, kindness, and diplomacy are seen as weakness there.  Weakness is to be exploited.  Iran is saber-rattling on their growing nuclear capability and we do nothing - even diplomatically.  We are cutting defense (do your homework instead of listening to speeches.  Look at the proposals, the actions)  We do not project strength.  Our ambassador is killed on 9/11 and the State Dept apologizes?  Only now is Obama calling it a terrorist act.

I don't really care what Romney or Obama say.  I don't plan to listen to the media.  I am looking at what they have done with the opportunities they have been given after taking office.  Oh, and like Romney, my parents had a bit of money (not rich, but enough to help us out).  Like the Romneys, we didn't take their offered help.  We started as they did - on our own.  It is a fairly common pattern in this country.  You make choices.  You work hard.  You raise your family.  If you do well, keep at it, and don't get screwed by the government, eventually you retire and do the things you watched your parents do after you left home.  It doesn't make up for the loss of energy or kids running through the house, but it is something to look forward to.

Report this comment
#12) On September 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Mary953 (84.14) wrote:


That was my answer to your question number 2.

My answer to question number 1 is a question back - would you prefer a theocracy, a monarchy, a military junta?  What else can we easily do (minimal effort) that allows us to keep some handle on how things go?  And no, voting does not make this country great - Americans do.  Not the famous ones, the whole bunch of us, even when we disagree! 

Report this comment
#13) On September 23, 2012 at 11:30 PM, awallejr (37.00) wrote:

Well personally I do care what Romney and Obama say. And since Romney never was President it is hard to predict regarding him.  I have no problem with disagreements.  I expect that since viewpoints equal the number of people on the planet. there will be differences of opinion equal to that number.

And since viewpoints do equal the number of people on the planet I expect compromise is necessary because viewpoints equal the number of people on the planet.

While many are able to avoid taking help how about the people I referred to in comment #4 in:

Those were people who were dealt a hand beyond their control.  Heck with them because they are unable to survive without help?

It is not always a question about choices, oftentimes it is a question about how that "hand was ultimately dealt."

Report this comment
#14) On September 24, 2012 at 12:16 PM, mtf00l (43.37) wrote:


I agree, you shouldn't blog drunk...

That said, I look forward to your next sober blog.

Report this comment
#15) On September 24, 2012 at 1:15 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


I lived in the Middle East for 6-7 years.  That is all nonsense.  Sorry, but it is.  The average Muslim doesn't have anything against you or your family. They hate the American government because of decades of abusive policies and violent behavior.  Romney will only exacerbate that.

As far as what kind of government i would like, the answer is none of the above.  We are not limited to those choices (choices pre-defiened for you by the State.)


Drunk or sober, I'm still the best =D.

David Burns


Report this comment
#16) On September 25, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Mary953 (84.14) wrote:

Always were, always are, David!

Report this comment
#17) On September 25, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Mary953 (84.14) wrote:

and always so very modest about it   ;)

Report this comment
#18) On September 25, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Frankydontfailme (29.38) wrote:

"The funny thing is, they need two parties to work  if it were just one party, there would be no "well yeah what I am doing sucks but its better than that guy!'"

I was talking to my dad about this - he's from RI where the Democrats have firmly controlled the state goverment (85% majority in the house) for longer than I've been alive. I wondered if the RI democrats can even muster a strawman to blame their woes on - RI is increasingly becoming impoverished, corrupt and jobless. Why do they remain in power? As dumb as the voters are, at least they realize the other side won't improve things.

Voters get the leaders they deserve it seems.

 David, do you have any hope in Rand Paul for 2016? I'd like to be optimistic as he has a good track record of voting for what he believes in, but more and more he's moved towards the neo side to get the backing of the party. Seems our government is too screwed up for any one leader to help anyway.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners