Gut Rumbles
 

April 12, 2003

times change

I seem to recall Jimmy Carter owing NO income tax on $600,000 worth of income in 1977 because of deductions he claimed from his peanut-farming business. Out of the goodness of his heart and his firm belief that "everyone should pay income taxes," he wrote the government a check for $6,000. Imagine the generosity! He donated an entire 1% of his income to the federal government of his own free will!

Whatta man!

Meanwhile, the fuckwit was confiscating about 15% of mine at the point of a gun. I didn't make much money in those days. I lived poor and I lived cheap. But Uncle Sam got his cut of my meager purse, right off the top. So it goes.

Let the liberals criticize this:

President Bush reported $856,056 in adjusted gross income for last year and paid $268,719, or about 31 percent, in federal income taxes, the White House announced Friday

Leftists hate Bush. They LOVED Bill Clinton, however, who took deductions for his shit-stained underwear and left the White House while hauling booty in trucks like an Iraqi looter.

Leftists still love Clinton. Bush is an honest man and Clinton was a butt-weasel. Leftists prefer the butt-weasel because he says what they want to hear and he looks so PRETTY when he says it, even if he's lying like the butt-weasel that he is.

If that doesn't sound like a cult mentality, I don't know what does. Bring on the purple Kool-Aid.

Bill and Hillary BOTH accepted huge advances for books they were SUPPOSED to write, but they haven't hit a lick at that project yet. They never intended to when they took the money. THERE'S your leftist heroes. Corrupt. Dishonest. Liars. Self-aggrandizing. Shitheels.

Give me George Bush and Condi Rice any day over that bunch of scum.


Comments

Bush is an honest man . . . .

Bush is honest? "I won't engage in nation-building," "I'll actually do something to help education/local economies/AIDS sufferers in Africa," "I won't pass along our [national debt] to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations," "I've given up boozing," "I can speak Spanish"--THAT Bush?

Right-wingers like to pretend that dislike for Bush is a partisan thing, but what besides their own partisanship could compel anyone to support him? It's not just that he's not a Democrat; it's that he's the worst his party has to offer. If you snuck a peashooter into the REPUBLICAN convention, blindfolded yourself, spun around a few times and blew, pretty much anyone you beaned would make a better president than Bush.

Again, it's not partisan--Dole, Guiliani, McCain (and I bet you can think of more names)--do you believe that if any one of these Republicans were in the White House, he'd, say, pack the judiciary and presidential advisory groups with religious nuts, or decide that protecting his cronies from the SEC was more important than stabilizing the financial market, or let his foreign and monetary policies be dictated by ivory tower ideologues, or select an attorney general who was afraid of cats and breasts and made a point of greasing up with Crisco on big occasions, or have a VP who goes permanently into hiding? It's only partisanship from their side than keeps Republicans from seeing how looney this administration is.

What but GOP partisanship could make them forget that before the mid-90s, Bush basically did nothing his whole life but get high and sponge off his dad and his dad's friends? The biggest rockpile most politicians have to deal with is fundraising and holding elected office is the only real job Bush ever had. But even there, he's never had to work as hard as others in his occupation--once again, Daddy's friends have spared him from the reality check of work. So we have a president who, in times of heartbreaking national crisis, whines about how he actually had to spend time on the phone! Poor baby!!--it almost cut into his jogging time!

Clearly you're not a fan of President Clinton, but he got to Oxford and through Yale, passed the Bar, practiced law and started a political career through his own hard work. I obviously don't agree with you on much, but even you--who got through school on your own bat, held down a job you got on your own, supported a family, apparently lived some kind of grown-up life with real responsibilities and all the trimmings--YOU would make a better president than this pisher.

Posted by: Molly, NYC on April 12, 2003 04:21 PM

Hi Rob:

How big a frickin idiot would you have to be to ADVANCE Bill OR Hillary! real dough on the promise of delivery of actual product? HEH!

Only, the publisher - if he's smart - can probably sell millions of copies of a matched set of his and her's volumes of blank pages. The asswits who would buy their books anyway would probably think it was double-funny that the Clintons ripped-off the Th' MAN. [he so stupid] They wouldn't read the books either way. They only want the dust jackets to show while they're carrying them around.

Imagine it.

Posted by: Dan Dickinson on April 12, 2003 04:24 PM

Molly, NYC:

Fuck you.

The fact that you can even defend the Clintons shows what a loser you are.

I went to Oxford. Would that excuse my use of the Oval Office as a brothel?

Why don't you go find some Iraqi children to re-imprison? At least you'd be acting true to your nature.

Again, fuck you.

Posted by: Patti B on April 12, 2003 05:14 PM

Molly, NYC:

Oh, and one more thing.

If Bill Clinton had gone after Osama bin Laden the FIRST time he bombed the World Trade Center, all those people who died on 9/11 would probably be alive today.

Instead, Bill was busy getting blowjobs under his desk.

I find it sad that you are so impressed by a law degree and an Oxford education that you cannot condemn the fact that he, in essence, killed all those innocent people because his dick was a bigger priority than his country.

Again, fuck you.

Posted by: Patti B on April 12, 2003 05:24 PM

Go Patti!

Posted by: Jay Solo on April 12, 2003 05:39 PM

I would comment here, but I had more room on my blog. PattiB, I think I love you...

Posted by: Acidman on April 12, 2003 06:03 PM

Patti, please get a blog so we can all read it!

Posted by: Kevin McGehee on April 12, 2003 08:32 PM

"....practiced law and started a political career through his own hard work." While DODGING THE DRAFT. Hard work? The MF never worked a MF day in his MF life!

BTW, Rhodes Scholarships don't grow on trees. How many promises he didn't keep do you suppose he made to his sponsor(s)?

You like it better when I abbreviate motherfucker, A-Man?

Posted by: Larry on April 12, 2003 09:41 PM

Clinton . . .Clinton . . . Clinton . . .Clinton's dick . . . blowjob

Y'know, President Clinton's been out of office for more than two years now and the BJ that has you so creamy was about seven years ago. Maybe it's time you got over him.

For example, if you look at my post, you'll notice that it wasn't about Clinton; he was mentioned exactly once, as someone who, like pretty much every adult in this country including probably you, has a better work history than Bush--which was my point. I don't particularly want to feed your obsession with him but as long as you brought it up: whether a law degree and scholastic honors are all that impressive depends on your point of view--but in this case, they went to the guy with the trailer-trash background. For that matter, Condi Rice's parents didn't have much either and look at what she did with her life.

But Bush grew up with every possible privilege--so what's his excuse for NOT having anything like that? Even Jeb hit the books (and unlike his brother, can speak Spanish).

And academics aren't the only thing. Tom Delay's being an exterminator is the subject of a lot of jokes but unlike Bush, he did run a business, did get up every day to do a tough, sweaty job, does know what it is to put in a day's work. And that IS a lot more impressive than anything Bush can point to.

Seriously, can you tell me what you like about Bush? Or is your only defense of him limited to ranting about his predecessor?


And by the way:

I went to Oxford.

Now, that wouldn't be, say, a one-day excursion with the rest of the tour group, back to a cheap hotel near Victoria Station by nightfall (or something similar) would it? Because if you're trying to imply that you were a Rhodes Scholar, it isn't working

Posted by: Molly, NYC on April 12, 2003 10:31 PM

Poor Molly. Sooooo sorry to make you get your undies in a bunch, Lovie.

It's unfortunate you're unable to sustain an objective debate without taking personal potshots at people you don't know. I'm told that's a sign of sexual frustration. Sorry, don't have any experience with that personally so I can't suggest treatment. I'm sure there are doctors out there for that kind of thing, though....

You seem to be obsessed with Acidman's blog, too. Don't even want to THINK what that implies about you.

Afraid I don't know anything about cheap hotels near Victoria Station, or what goes on there after nightfall. Apparently you do, though. Hmmm..... That would contradict my comment about sexual frustration, though, wouldn't it?

Two points:

1) I like GWB in part because he's a relatively honest person, a trait that strangely isn't a requirement for the presidency.

2) Of course I wasn't a Rhodes Scholar. I'm British, you silly girl. Brits don't need Rhodes Scholarships to attend university in their own country.

Perhaps you should come back armed with a few more facts and a little less hysteria; hopefully you can make the distinction.

Posted by: Patti B on April 13, 2003 04:47 PM

Molly NYC:
How's about a nice blowjob?
It's not SEX, after all!

Posted by: David Paglia on April 14, 2003 09:15 AM

AND maybe you dems should get OVER 2000.
Like that creamy bj you want us to forget.
Clinton did shit. We were in all the wrong places, and HE wouldn't even go(dodger)
His inaction caused 9/11.
Hillary will NEVER be president, thank god at least half the ppl know what she's all about.
You dems have too much rhetoric, just shut the fuck up, and let him do his fuckin job.
Dems make a lemon seem 'sweet'.
Can we say 'bitter??????'

Posted by: greg on April 14, 2003 03:47 PM
Post a comment