Thursday, October 30, 2008

The times, they are a "change"-ing

The soon to be emperor has no clothes, but far be it for the "mainstream" media to tell him that! The poor mainstream media is so ga-ga over BO they can't comprehend how much he has pulled the wool over their eyes.

"Change" is a nice word, but without defining it, what does change really mean for the Democrats who blindly follow the Obamanation? It would seem that change for them is the "re-equalisation" of wealth among rich and poor. What a pleasant socialist agenda! Reward fiscal conservatism? Reward entrepreneurship? HARDLY! The Democrats want to take what you already have and redistribute it to the undeserving masses while simultaneously sinking any hope of realising the "American Dream". They would rather you didn't own a house, or drive the car you like, oh hell, they even want to control how your church can celebrate it's religion by forcing them to accept gay marriage.

Things sure are "change"-ing already even before BO loses on Nov. 4th!!!

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Wag the Dog...eBay Style...

...Or perhaps it should be Paypal style. Maybe the whole "disruptive innovation" that eBay CEO John Donahoe came up with is to essentially scuttle eBay as an auction house, creating "jr", while at the same time letting former independent Paypal (now "owned" by eBay) become the defacto internet market transaction portal for those convient paperless (and victimless) transactions. That way, even if eBay's core businness as a wanna-be lookalike to uttterly fails (as they seem to be driving at), the real money control will still be Paypal. Since Payal is a subordinate company to eBay, eBay's prime share holders reap the benefits of the deal. Notice that Paypal is NOT publically traded and thus could be spun off soley at the discretion of the board.
Who really runs eBay? eBay or Paypal? Odds are Paypal is calling the shots on this scenario.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Barak Obama, Socialism and the Reverse Funnel

The common denominator is the pyramid scheme.

Obama promises to "spread the wealth"
Socialism promises to "spread the wealth"
Pyramid schemes promise to "spread the wealth"

The only difference between the three is who the wealth distribution actually goes to.

We've likely heard the $50k-a-month advertisements on the radio. Youtube has a funny video that explains it as a "reverse funnel" (which looks remarkably like a pyramid). You would think that someone who claims to make $50k a month would have better commercials, after all the guy "makes" $600k per year luring suckers into his scheme.

Likewise throughout history socialism has claimed to be the vehile of equalising the rich and the poor, yet every socialist experiment foisted upon mankind to date always winds up as an oligarchy. A few very rich leaders and a boatload of very poor handing over what little they have to support the ultra rich leaders.

Then, there's Obama. He won;t let on to his faithful followers that they will be screwed along with everyone else. Many of Obama's supporters earn significant six figure incomes and would be punitively taxed under his "wealth re-distrubtion" ideals. Somehow they seem to think that they will be among the oligarchs in the power class. How sadly wrong they are. They only need to look at History to show the ugly truth of socialist agendas.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

McCain better raise some cain if he wants to win

Wow! Only 3 weeks to go till the long anticipated election of the century, and we're only 8 years into the century!

Hopefully, we the American voters will have the decency and sense to vote for McCain/Palin rather than the hopelessly inexperienced Obama/Biden ticket which only promises to RAISE TAXES on everybody and redistribute those taxes to the "poor" as defined by wealthy liberal Democrat elites.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

OCT 1929, again?

Well, maybe not, though with banks failing it is reminiscent of the saving and loan fiasco of 1989. Perhaps the worst awaits us in 2009. Seems to be years ending in "9" that get the investors and markets spooked.

With less than a month to go before a rather unusual election we are faced with a financial crisis of extreme scope. If the Fed bails out the banks, then our banking system is nationalised. Hmmm Socialism, that stuff the Democrats seem to embrace so willingly even if they will say anything to call it by another name. Speaking of Democrats, it was on their watch that this crisis happened. Sure, they're trying to blame President Bush. You'd think our own congress doesn't understand the concept of seperation of powers as defined in our constitution! Congress is the body that wites the laws and regulates trade and taxes. The President only serves to watch congress in this respect to approve or veto legislation passed by both houses. Since Democrats are the majority party, they could have seen fit to step in at any time since JANUARY 2008 to control the situation. But, no, they were as much on the take as the institutions they were supposed to be watching, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Institutions created during Democrat party majorities), having recieved campaign funds directly from both now defunct organisations.