They Want Bush's Head at Any Price...

This is another response I had to someone, this time on a message board where he was celebrating the low approval rating of our President, George W. Bush. He was treating it as if this approval rating meant that the entire country is going against the Republican party, when in reality, the approval rating is so low because Bush is trying to cater to the liberals on the left, which is alienating his base.

Know what the funny thing is? The liberals said the SAME things about another great Republican in the 1860's. His name was Abraham Lincoln. Oh, and they said the same things about Ronald Reagan too, but who here lives in fear of nuclear war with Russia today? Looks like Reagan was right too.

Here is my response:

Other guy: "Bush is horrible, blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda... approval rating soooo low, yadda yadda..."

Yeah, because he's trying to cater to you ultra-liberal whining bastards who'd rather see a Fundamentalist Muslim standing on the necks of US Soldiers, than you would like to admit that Bush is right in standing up to these crackheads.

Seriously, look at it, over the last few years, as SOON as we went into Iraq, we saw all these rogue nations across the globe stand up and say "HOLY CRAP!!!! Um... yeah, those nuclear and chemical weapons we were devloping, um, we don't want those anymore..." Heck, even freaking Iran and North Korea shut their big fat mouths.

THEN, all of a sudden, crackhead liberals like Ted "Commie-Commie" Kennedy, Nancy "Stalin was Conservative compared to me" Pelosi, and Dennis "Let's try Communism again" Kucinich, started whining about how this is all so wrong, and we need to stop it now. IMMEDIATELY, North Korea and Iran started talking their big crap again, because Bush didn't have the public support that he had when we went in, and they KNEW that they could get away with murder (or developing nuclear weapons, like they are now), because YOU PANSIES would start whining and protesting.

Friggin' hippy bastards.

How About a Minimum Wage Increase?

I wrote this letter to an excellent radio host, Bob Dutko, on WMUZ 103.5 FM in Detroit, in response to his question to his audience "Would a minimum wage increase help the economy?"


Bob, in response to the quesiton of a minimum wage increase, I have a few quick words:

If you're going to increase the minimum wage, why not increase it to $100 an hour? I mean, if you can legislate people rich (or even "good enough"), then let's do it. But we all know it doesn't work that way.

Some jobs are only worth a certain amount of money per hour. If I'm working in a factory, and my labor only produces $4.35 worth of materials per hour, than why should a company be forced to pay me $5.15 an hour minimum? The simple fact is, increasing the minimum wage in this situation will cause me to get fired, and the job to go to China [where they don't have minimum wage laws].

This is the exact case that happened in Ohio. Congressman Bob McEwen came in to speak at an event I attended, and he related this story: In a factory in Ohio, they employ all mentally handicapped people. They come in to work each day and greet their friends, listen to music, and have fun while they assemble parts to make a product. The value of the items produced is about $3 per person, per hour. Unions and liberals came into that factory and wanted to shut it down unless they paid the workers minimum wage. They ended up getting some sort of special exemption for handicapped workers, and the factory stayed open.

Now, what would have happened if the liberals got their way? VICTORY for the working guy, right? No, those handicapped people would be sitting at home right now, without a job, and without the enjoyment and sense of satisfaction they got out of being at the factory, doing something productive. And that would have been a MEAN thing to do.