I’m waiting for Obama to apply “income equality” to Jay Z and Beyonce

Alas, this week we’ve found the theme upon which President Obama and the progressive socialist Left will now stake their claim: equality.

These astute individuals truly believe it is their destiny to make us all equal — as they define it. Listen to the constant rants from the president and the leftist acolytes about “income inequality.” With the full power of the government, either by force or coercion (or both), they shall rectify this inequality and make us all equal. How exactly is that done, and the larger question is, to whom?

Shall we turn to Lebron James and tell him he doesn’t deserve any more in income or compensation, than the 12th listed person on the Heat roster?

Shall President Obama and his pay czar decide what the base level compensation must be across the NBA?

Will the Obama administration turn to Roger Goodell, Commissioner of the NFL, and instruct him on team salary caps?

Or shall President Obama, known for his baseball pitching prowess, tell the New York Yankees they must rescind the seven year $155 million contract to Japanese pitcher Masahiro Tanaka — after all the comptroller of NYC believes in “shared prosperity for all over individual success.”

I’m waiting for President Obama to say during his State of the Union address that income inequality is so vital and important as issue that he will issue an executive order that caps the compensation for Hollywood actors and actresses. After all, why do they need all that income?

As well, entertainers such as his dear friends Jay Z and Beyonce must see a cut in their income and their concerts must be made more affordable to all Americans.

Now, do you REALLY believe that’s what President Obama and the Left mean when they talk about income inequality? Nope. They’re talking about those Americans whom the President referred to when he said, “You didn’t build that.” Because you didn’t, you don’t deserve the fruits of your hard-earned labor, investments, and sacrifices.

You see, we don’t need uniform standards in our military or even physical standards, because everyone is equal and should be allowed to “play.” One man and one woman shouldn’t define marriage. What difference do the last few thousand years of history make?

All of this sounds good, or as we used to say in the military, “briefs well,” but just tell me how has it indeed worked out through history when a government, socialist in nature, has tried to force social egalitarianism — under the guise of equality?

America is great because it is based upon an exceptional ideal of equality of opportunity. Progressive socialists embrace the failed concept of equality of outcomes.

I am 5’9” and cannot dunk a basketball, but I don’t envy Lebron James for his talents and ability to do so, nor his compensation for it. I found my niche and ability in life as a Soldier and was thankful for my opportunity to serve and the compensation afforded (allow the government has reduced my earned retirement benefits).

Celebration of diversity is not about elevating other cultures above America. It is the celebration of our supreme regard for the diversity of our talents that has placed America above all other cultures and nations.

Let us never forget Thomas Jefferson’s words that “our unalienable rights, from the Creator, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And a government that believes it’s big enough to try and guarantee happiness is also powerful enough to take it away — equally.


    • But I can see the brilliance of this theme because it’s what all the folks who live on the assistance of the government. This theme is perfect to them, because it can only mean MORE for them and the only work they have to do is vote. No need to do anything else. Then just sit back and collect from Pimp Uncle Sam. And of course, all those who normally are exempt, will again be exempt from complying, meaning those who party with and smile big at the prez.

  1. Thanks, Col. West! I’ve been waiting to hear what Beyonce and Jay-Z are doing to rectify income equality. Are they planning to open up their wallets to fund education for underprivileged children, build a hospital wing, fully supply a local food bank for a year or so? Considering what their concert tickets cost, shouldn’t they lead by example?

  2. “America is great because it is based upon an exceptional ideal of equality of opportunity. Progressive socialists embrace the failed concept of equality of outcomes.”

    Exactly what I was thinking, but you put it more succinctly.


  4. Equality of outcome, regardless of talent or effort will make us all equally miserable. The only thing left to spread around is misery.

  5. Not all are created equal, some are physically or mentally challenged or have other factors that hold them back., But all should have the opportunity to reach their maximum potential, be it making brooms in a shealtered shop or working at N.A.S.A, The government cannot make all equal all it can do is help provide opportunity.,

  6. Lets try this first with the Federal Government. Add up the total number for federal employees – everyone from the president, Senators, Congressmen, ….to the clerks, janitors. Take the total salary they make and divide by the total number of employees and pay them all the same amount. If that makes all of them happy then we could consider ways to expand it. But good luck with that making ALL the federal employees happy!!!!

    • That’s not what rectifying income equality means. That’s redistribution of wealth. Income inequality is the gap between what the richest fraction of a percent hold in wealth compared to the bottom large percent. It means we should do things like raise taxes on the rich over a certain threshold so that people who have more money than anyone could ever need in 100 lifetimes cannot simply hoard their wealth while millions suffer even though they work hard.

      If you’re OK with the system the way it is now, you’re a sociopath. And probably a Christian, too?

      • I’m not OK with the existing system; I would be OK with everyone paying the exact same percentage, I’m not OK with people getting back more in an income tax “refund” than they paid in. I WORK for my money. I think everyone else should work for their money – I do not think the federal government should be able to take my money away from me and give it to someone else! I do not think they should give that money to someone who is in this country illegally. I am far from the rich person you describe I am upper middle class and the federal government is breaking my back. My personal opinion we – should strip ALL programs from the federal government (except the military, foreign policy, …) and all other programs should be pushed back to the states, states should then push back most of their power to the counties; it is easier to see real needs on a smaller scale – less chance of abuse. The federal government should tax the states; states should tax individuals to pay the feds. How much do we pay each year to IRS employees? Let the state use their people to do this. Do I think some people need help? YES! Do I resent giving to them? NO! Do I think the federal government waste most of what they manage? HELL YES! Is the answer in MORE Federal regulation and taxes? HELL NO!

  7. Here’s the problem with wanting to wipe out income inequality.

    If by some event we all got of bed tomorrow and everyone had the exact same income and no one owned any property, within a years time (much less actually, but roll with it) there would be people who were rich and who were bankrupt and terribly in debt.

    Then the siren call would be to wipe out wealth inequality.

    Then beauty inequality.

    Then intelligence inequality.

    Then health inequality.

    If the destruction of inequality is one’s principle then one must destroy, because it is impossible to create equal income, wealth, beauty, intelligence, or health.

    These things CAN be destroyed equally, but they cannot be created equally.

    That is why Leftists are the Cult of Death.

      • It’s not a slippery slope fallacy.

        It’s what Leftists, in their “progressive” mode do.
        The status quo is evil.

        Today’s progressive victory is tomorrow’s status quo.
        But I note well your abuse of language with such formulations as “marriage equality” to describe physical relationships formed upon sodomy or tribadism.

        I have neither any idea nor any interest as to whether or not the objective disorder known as homosexuality leads to bestiality or pedophilia.

        It is clear however that those things already exist and need not wait for the Alphabet Soup Pride People.

        It is also clear that the same arguments for “gay marriage” work as arguments for poly-amory (or whatever they’re calling it today), incest, bestiality, etc.

        It’s not a slippery slope at all.

        It’s just the nature of thing by definition.

      • A slippery slope is not always a fallacy.

        It’s a fallacy if and only if the connections do not logically connect.

        I wish people could get this straight. Another word for “slippery slope” is precedent.

      • Then there’s the Fallacy Fallacy: Just because an argument is flawed in its form, it doesn’t follow that the conclusion is false.

      • There’s also the fact that every other argument he’s made is either fallacious or disproved. If your argument is valid, you wouldn’t need to resort to fallacies, especially if you were educated on the subject you’re talking about.

      • You’re a moron because you apparently walk through life thinking your some kind of Fallacy Detector of Victory.

        The fact is, most people, that is, normal people, don’t go through their lives or have conversations in which everything must have a citation and meet properly formulated non-fallacious standards of argumentation.

        Most people, that is normal people, understand that the human experience, human history, personal experiences are not lab experiments.

        That’s why atheists of your type repulse most people, that is normal people.

        That’s because normal people rightly understand that you’re a pedantic moron.

        So, when you get to homeroom tomorrow at Absorbine Junior High School you can tell your friends in the calculator club that you were victorious.

        Knock yourself out.


      • Since there is absolutely nothing connecting homosexuality to increased bestiality nor pedophilia, then yes, it is a slippery slope fallacy.

        Oh, and the fact that in countries and states where homoseuxal marriage is allowed, these things have not happened. Where’s your precedent now?

        And if you’re religious, I guess the fact that many religions have been proven untrue should set good precedent that your is BS as well, no?

      • You’re wrong about that.

        First: the word “orientation”, as you have defined it, applies to pedophiles as well as to homosexuals. (This is already being studied by legitimate scientists).

        Second: legal precedent. If the homosexuals’ argument is correct, then ‘equality under the law’ says that they are correct for EVERYONE. If you have a right to have your sexual pleasure detached from morality – and affirmed by the populace – then why wouldn’t everyone?

        Third: it is happening. Of course it isn’t going to happen overnight – why would it? – but the same arguments used successfully for homosexuals are now being used in cases such as the Doodles the Donkey case in Florida. The Washington Post has published an editorial originally entitled “Sex Between Students And Teachers Should Not Be A Crime”, Salon published “Children Are Sexual Beings”, etc. (you can google these, as well as “pedophilia is an orientation”)

        Fourth: I notice you conspicuously left out polygamy. Some of the same people who insisted that it was a slippery slope before are coincidentally the same people who immediately came out with editorials on how “discriminatory” it is to “discriminate” against polyamorous couplings and “group marriage”.

        Fifth: the history of homosexuality is a history of lies re: actual goals. Every time “the” goal is reached, homosexuals have revealed that it’s not enough, and their real goal is in fact the destruction of yet another boundary. For this reason, I think it is not at all implausible to take gay rights activists at their word when they claim that the real goal is the destruction of all sexual morality and the institution of marriage.

      • 1. Orientation refers to what sex you are attracted to. If you are attracted to the same sex, you are homosexual. Opposite sex, heterosexual. That’s what it means. Orientation has nothing to do with being a pedophile, certainly not in the context of this discussion. Stop trying to play word games and address the actual argument.

        2. Legal precedent – the Constitution guarantees equal protection. Marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults. Discriminating based upon sex is unequal treatment. It has nothing to do with sexual pleasure. There is no requirement to have sex to get a marriage license. And morality? What is immoral about two people making love? Who is hurt? Don’t even bring up the Bible, because there’s a whole lot of immoral stuff in there.

        3. Sex between students and teachers? I am assuming this is referring to adult students in high school or college and adult teachers. If everyone is an adult, why is there anything wrong with this? Why special rules because of someone’s profession? As far as “children are sexual beings”, again I’m going to assume by the sound of it that it is simply explaining that children have natural curosity and urges related to sex, not that the article is advocating for children to have sex with adults. And if it is saying that, then one blog article is not evidence of some sort of revolution. I would be right next to you speaking out against it if that were the case.

        4. Honestly, what is the problem with polygamy? Since marriage is simply a legal contract, why not allow multiple people to agree to an arrangement? The only reason you object is because of religious arguments. Religion has no business dictating anything in government.

        5. What the hell is the “history of homosexuality”? It’s the same as the history of humanity. There have always been homosexuals. You sure sound like you’ve been fed quite a lot of propaganda to fuel your bigotry and hatred of others unlike yourself.

      • 1. Orientation refers to what sex you are attracted to. If you are attracted to the same sex, you are homosexual. Opposite sex, heterosexual. That’s what it means. Orientation has nothing to do with being a pedophile, certainly not in the context of this discussion. Stop trying to play word games and address the actual argument.

        Pedophiles are that way from birth. This is being scientifically proven. They can’t help their attractions.

        If you believe that doesn’t grant them a blank check to behave any way they want, then maybe you should be critical of gay rights claims that demand nothing less than that blank check to behave any way they want, without regard to consequences and with NO regard whatever toward the other stakeholders – all of whom are either ruthlessly minimized (“children don’t really mind having a stepfather instead of a real mother; a fake family created around the urges of my loins are just as good for a child as his own real intact family; an adoption based on what I want, at the expense of my child, is no different from an adoption based on what’s best for the child; lines are for blurring…”)

        NO OTHER DISABILITY other than homosexuality gets a blank check to define their own accommodations. Nor does any other disability get a right to “equality of outcome” so compelling that the rights of all other stakeholders (including not only children but First Amendment rights to hold sacred beliefs about the ties of family, the sacraments of marriage, or the reality of reality itself) are literally rendered irrelevant.

      • You’re making a false analogy. Some people are psychopaths from birth too, but we don’t excuse them if they kill people.

        Homosexuality is not a disease or disability. It is simply a less often expressed trait. Why do you hate homosexuals so much? Who is feeding you the propaganda?

        Oh, and the “sacrament of marriage” has nothing to do with getting a marriage license. I’m an atheist and I’m married. Gee, how’d that happen? And you want to talk about making marriage irrelevant? Studies show that divorce rates are higher in highly religious areas.

      • If homosexuality is not a disability, then there is no basis for their claim that they are entitled to equality of outcome, and there is no reason why they should be entitled to any accommodations at all.

        But their argument fall apart if you take out the equality of outcome claims. Their argument is that they are entitled to accommodations – that, in fact, they need accommodations in order to live a decent life, because a physical problem that they have no control over and no choice over has made it impossible for them to reconcile their sexuality with the needs and demands of family life without accommodations.

      • The basis for their claim comes from our Constitution. Equal liberty and freedom for all. It’s not accommodation to give rights to people which have been wrongfully witheld.

        You’re taking the view that giving them rights gives them something not available to others, when in fact it is the complete opposite. Why are you so adamant about fighting something that has no affect on your life anyways?

      • Equal liberty isn’t a blank check to have whatever you want, without regard for others.

        What gays want are “rights” that clash with the established rights of at least three other groups:

        1. Children: for gays to have what they want, we need to remove the “child’s best interest” standard from adoption – the very thing that gives adoption its legitimacy. Instead of childrens’ needs being prioritized, gays’ “right” to possess a child (for reasons that remain unclear – still have not heard a single reason as to WHY do they “need” to pretend to have a child together, instead of acknowledging their child’s real other parent) must be prioritized over what’s best for the child, even at the expense of what’s best for the child – as happened in the Miller v. Jenkins’ case, where a lesbian’s “rights” gave her a “right” to a child that was in reality only her former stepdaughter.

        2. Religious rights – only one faith-based belief in the world believes that “choice” trumps reality. Every other world religion – Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hindu, Shinto, Confucianism, etc. – teaches that we must respect the bonds of kinship, including the bonds between parent/child and the bonds between the two people who make a baby together. It’s a zero sum situation: either the right to recognize the sanctity of those bonds exists, or gays have the right to force us all to participate in an equality that presumes there is NO difference between a bond of kinship and a bond of friendship.

        3. The right to truth: this is what will ultimately doom the movement. It simply is not a legitimate function of government to compensate people who’ve been discriminated against by biology by forcing people into lies designed to create an artificial “equality”.

        In other words, I have a right to not only believe, but speak, the truth. You can have no legitimate right to make it a crime under the guise of “discrimination”.

        By the way, here is how the gays do the trick: they mix and match civil rights – demanding the best of three different types of rights, while rejecting all the obligations. They want the generous accommodations disabled people are entitled to, the total equality granted to ethnic claimants (as if “gay” were a color – hence the rainbow logo and the frequent false analogy comparisons with black civil rights), and the freedom of speech and belief granted to freedom of religion. All of those rights would be valid if they weren’t taken to extremes – but consider:

        – disability rights come with certain constraints (like you can only have accommodations based on actual demonstrated need, not just wish-list stuff)

        – the right to not be discriminated against “based on who you are” does not include the right to not be discriminated against based on your behavior. Ethnic groups have not successfully persuaded anyone that the right to be equal includes the right to behave any way you want – and it’s the fact that nobody is testing for “gay genes” that makes it simply false analogy to equate orientation with skin color.

        – the right to freedom of belief and religion is a “live and let live” (or “share and share alike”), not a case of “I have beliefs so you don’t”.

      • I’m not even bothering with you any more – and no, this isn’t a concession – I’ve simply spent far too much time proving you wrong and you refused to admit it, so you’re obviously set in your ways.

        Just understand that your arguments are all fallacious and easily disproven, and you are on the wrong side of history. Just like your pal Allan West here, all you really want to do is smear the opposition to earn votes from the ignorant masses.

      • I’ve simply spent far too much time proving you wrong and you refused to admit it

        No, I’m genuinely too ignorant to see how you’ve proved me wrong on even one point.

        You mostly seem dedicated to avoiding my arguments and trying to find some way to loop things back to familiar talking points. Because everyone knows that you’re right because “religious people are icky”.

      • I actually don’t think gays are icky.

        I have great admiration for those brave gays who arrange for their children to have a healthy, intact family.

        It takes a certain amount of maturity to separate your own needs from your childs’ needs. Especially when there’s an entire community pressuring you to blur the boundaries.

      • I should add: I do think liars are icky.

        My issue is not with the sexual behavior, but with the dishonesty. The cognitive dissonance. The outright lies.

      • Marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults.

        I don’t object to gays being recognized as life partners.

        But marriage is more than that. I have yet to hear any good reason – other than the idea that equality is such a valid goal that we must pretend it exists even where it doesn’t – why gays either deserve or even need the right to share the procreative benefits of marriage with each other, rather than with the person they actually procreate with.

        Marriage is more than a contract between consenting adults. It is a contract that involves procreation – which is a special case, because the risks of procreation (including not only financial but physical, social, emotional, etc.) are not shared equally. Women are more vulnerable than men, and the children – the results of procreation – are most vulnerable of all.

        Marriage protects women and children. It protects women from exploitation – the sorts of exploitation gays rely on (See: Handmaid’s Tale….the gay version involves two or even three women: a “donor”, a “gestational brood mare”, and a “wet nurse” for the affluent….).

        More importantly: marriage keeps families together. A child born to married parents is less likely to be abandoned …. or sold … by one or both parents. Can gays say the same? No: their entire argument is that families are whatever the gay person wants them to be – and nobody else matters. They get double “choice”, and children get NONE. Their “parents” decide what they will feel before they are even born. They ‘won’t mind’ being motherless, because they are raised to understand that they aren’t allowed; they must feel what they’re told to feel. What their guardians need trumps what’s best for the child.

        Marriage also protects men, by giving them a means of signalling intent. You know – social signals? Like the peacock’s tail? Unwed birth is a giant red flag to the paternal family – and everyone else – saying “there is some sort of conflict between this child’s mother and myself. You can’t assume his loyalties aren’t divided; we are not one family, but two families in competition”. And of course being a scientist, you know how important “competition” is in evolution…..

      • You’re advancing a religious argument against a civil instituion. There is no test of religion, love, faithfulness, or fertility in order to get a legal marriage. I’m an atheist and I’m married. Plenty of married couples never have children, and never intended to. Your argument is invalid.

        Besides, there are already homosexuals living together, and having kids via adoption, surrogacy, or in vitro. By keeping them unable to get married, all you’re doing is hurting families, not helping. It’s just not the type of family you’re used to, so you consider them less valuable.

      • What argument is “religious”?

        How is it “religious”?

        I am not aware that I have made any religious argument at all. Please point out how my argument is religious.

      • So you’re telling me you’re not religious? I’ve never met a non-religious opponent of gay marriage.

        All your nonsense about procreation is invalid. People get marrried all the time who never have kids.

      • Whether I am religious or not is beside the point.

        But you are mistaken if you believe that there is no basis of opposition to gay marriage other than religious. Obviously the religious are most upset – because they are losing their religious rights, and because they must be demonized in order to sustain the myth that the lies necessary for gay marriage are “harmless”.

        But that is not the only objection to gay marriage. If I were you, I would expect to see opposition grow – and the number of arguments to expand – as people become more familiar with what gay marriage actually entails, and realizes that the false assurances that nothing will change were never anything but lies.

      • It is not beside the point. It is the entire point. As I said, I’ve yet to meet any non-religious person who opposes marriage equality. I wonder why?

        It’s because once you realize that your religion has no business affecting government policy, then you have to come up with weak, thinly veiled arguments to support your position, otherwise just concede that you have no argument. So you come up with this nonsense about children, family, and some sort of detriment to society and push that. Trust me, I know, I used to be you.

        A study out of Australia actually just determined that children raised by same-sex couples were overall better off with respect to many different categories, and they posit that this is because there are no “accidental” children in same-sex relationships; every child is wanted. So keep spouting your paranoid, spurious arguments and ignoring reality.

      • It is not beside the point. It is the entire point. As I said, I’ve yet to meet any non-religious person who opposes marriage equality. I wonder why?

        There are actually several good essays out there on the Internet along the lines of “non-religious reasons why gay marriage is a problem”.

        I recommend “I’m Gay And I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage”, by Doug Mainwaring http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/

      • Check the methods your study used. I think you will find there is nothing “scientific” about it. If memory serves, that is the one that relies on interviews – and doesn’t even control for incentive.

        Raise a child under duress – knowing he is Exhibit A and there is no Exhibit B – and then not even control for incentive….that isn’t even pretending to be objective.

        Those studies are so incredibly bad. There isn’t enough population to study, in the first place. They don’t use control groups. They compare populations that are cherry-picked, so that they end up comparing affluent white lesbians recruited from political events against the general population, then act like it means something that the kids get excellent grades.

        They avoid the real questions – issues of identity, grief, loss, communication, taboos, parentification…the sorts of issues that are known to be issues with real motherless children, real fatherless children, real adoptive children are conspicuously absent from these studies.

        The science that isn’t obviously geared toward a partisan agenda makes it perfectly clear that parenting is NOT an androgynous activity; men and women do it differently. Very differently. And children relate differently to same-sex parents than they do to opposite-sex parents.

      • Even if all of this weren’t true, the children are still being deliberately deprived of something they have reason to value.

        Every child has the right to his own real biological mother and father. The only exceptions to this are supposed to be based on the child’s best interest, and they’re supposed to be overseen by a judge guarding that interest.

        When a person has to have a guardian, that guardian has a moral obligation to protect that person’s rights. Anything less is exploitation. Nobody has the right to give children away based on anyone’s interests other than the child’s. Freedom from exploitation & trafficking is one of the most fundamental rights there are.

        Gays like to say they have the right to “not live a lie”. I think their children should have that same right. Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable. They are unique – and they are the most valuable, highly treasured, important relationship a person will have. A “loving” parent would not just take that experience from a child for reasons so selfish they can’t even be named (what reason DOES a gay person have for insisting that their lover is their child’s other parent, anyway? What would it hurt to let the kid know her real dad?)

      • Sex between students and teachers?

        No, they were talking about underage kids. Google the article.

        Then Google Planned Parenthood’s opposition to the entire idea of “age of consent”. Two brochures I would particularly suggest – the one that starts with the text “children are sexual beings” is relevant because it was being handed out in high schools, and one of my kids brought it home to me. One of my kids brought home to me something they’d got at school that advised children that they have the “right” to lie to their parents or legal guardians, because “it’s your body”. (Someone being a bit confused about what “legal guardianship” IS, apparently).

        The other brochure is the AIDS rights brochure, “Happy Healthy & Hot”.

        You should be aware of what your fellow sexual revolution warriors are doing in your name.

      • Yeah, I clearly just said that if in fact these articles are claiming what you say they are, that I’m against them as well. But go on ignoring that part and acting like a couple newspaper and blog articles are indicative of a sea change. Hell, we better all head for our bunkers, I’ve read some Tea Party blogs lately…

      • You’re a molecular biologist and uber-intelligent, and yet you don’t understand what is wrong with ad hominem attacks?

      • Besides, where was I attacking you and not your argument?

        I was referring to your attempt to change the subject onto the Tea Party.

        BTW I am not a “tea partier”. But I wouldn’t be ashamed of it if I were. To me, true or false has nothing to do with stigma.

      • You’re a real trip.

        I wasn’t “changing the subject to the Tea Party”. I was brushing off your attempt at trying to paint the entire argument for gay rights as a movement that supports pedophilia by pointing out how stupid it would be to paint all conservatives with a broad brush by taking the views expressed in a couple extremist blogs and applying it to all conservatives.

        You missed the point.

      • I’m sure you had really valid reasons for comparing me to a highly stigmatized group.

        One that had absolutely nothing to do with your inability to respond with a valid argument to the points I raised.

      • You need a reading comprehension course. I never compared you to the Tea Party or said you were a Tea Partier. I was simply pointing out the flaw in your assertion regarding those who fight for the rights of homosexuals by giving an analogy to your line of reasoning.

      • Honestly, what is the problem with polygamy?

        The real question is, if your side is so sure it has truth on its side, why does it need to resort to so many lies?

      • What lies? You’re the one misrepresenting arguments and playing word games instead of addressing the topic.

        Fact: Your religion, nor anyone else’s, has any business dictating any government policy, including civil marriages.

      • Lie: gay couples are “the same as” other couples, because marriage “is not procreative”.

        But, of course, it’s discriminatory to object to teaching your children that Heather “has two mommies”.

        Heather does not have two mommies. She has a mother who is exploiting her and a father she’s not allowed to talk about.

        As I said, I do not begrudge gays whatever genuine need they have to be recognized as life partners. I just don’t see why they need to be “the same as” what they are not actually the same as.

        You’re welcome to believe that the differences “shouldn’t” matter – but you can’t honestly say there are no differences, and you have no right to tell me that I must believe those differences “don’t” matter. They do matter.

      • I’m so sorry that your little Johnny might have to be exposed to the world he actually lives in. Oh, the terror of knowing that some kids have same-sex parents!!! What, were you going to shield them forever?

      • I’m so sorry that your little Johnny might have to be exposed to the world he actually lives in. Oh, the terror of knowing that some kids have same-sex parents!!! What, were you going to shield them forever?

        Why are you so hostile?

        Does it make you defensive to be confronted with truths you’d been avoiding?

        Speaking of being exposed to the world one actually lives in.

      • How am I hostile? You’re the one generating false arguments to thinly veil the real underlying reason for your opposition (religion) and then expecting them to be taken seriously.

        Trust me, I used to be religious and make all the same arguments as you. Do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself.

      • There you go again, trying to act as if my arguments were somehow religious.

        I could say the same thing in reverse, by the way. I used to be in favor of gay rights, until the lies just got to be too much and I couldn’t do it any more.

      • Except you’d be lying. I actually was a Christian and actually used all your fallacious arguments. They were simply a way of clinging to faith, because if you accept that your arguments are nonsense, it means your beliefs are nonsense.

        And again, you’re not denying at all that you are religious, and that deep down the root of your opposition to gay rights is religion. You know its true, even if you won’t admit it.

      • No, I wouldn’t be lying.

        I have heard some of the things the children of gays are afraid to say to their parents.

        No child should EVER be afraid to admit to their own feelings of loss because their emotionally needy parent can’t handle it. That’s got a name. It’s called “parentification”. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=parentification&sprefix=parentif%2Cstripbooks&rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3Aparentification

      • You would be, and you are lying. Constantly. Seriously, were you put through some sort of anti-gay boot camp?

        Yeah, no child should EVER be afraid to tell their parents about their sexuality for fear of being punished, especially due to religious beliefs. It’s called “bigotry wrapped in prayer”.

      • So I’m lying. You know this how? It must be filed under “ad hominem attack”.

        But if you don’t like my “lying”, then go back to my arguments and tell me where you think I’m wrong.

        You can’t, and it’s making you irrational.

      • Half of your arguments are simply lies. You’re spewing propaganda left and right, and when you’re rebutted, you simply brush it aside.

        I’m irrational? You’re the one who believes in Bronze Age mythology.

      • “bigotry wrapped in prayer”.

        I have never actually met a child who couldn’t tell his parents that he was gay.

        Not saying they don’t exist, but I was talking about the opposite – children who were being exploited by gays, who had a level of self-awareness that we are told does not exist.

      • And again, you’re not denying at all that you are religious, and that deep down the root of your opposition to gay rights is religion. You know its true, even if you won’t admit it.

        I’d say “why do you want me to be religious so bad?” but we all know the answer, don’t we?

        Your entire argument is geared on exploiting bigotry against religious people. You simply can’t handle an argument that keeps religion out of the equation, because the only argument in favor of gay rights is “because the only people who mind are religious people, and they’re nasty you don’t want to be like THEMMMM!”

      • I don’t want you to be religious, you just are. You haven’t denied it once. I wonder why?

        You are the master of projection. Your entire argument against homosexuals is based upon bigotry, religious and otherwise, and you have the gall to claim that arguments against your bigotry is bigotry.

        Well, you know what? I am bigoted. Against bigots.

      • I don’t want you to be religious, you just are. You haven’t denied it once. I wonder why?

        Because I’m enjoying watching you get all bent out of shape, since obviously you rely overmuch on the hatred of religion arguments.

        Either that, or you’ve got unresolved daddy issues.

        Whatever it is that makes you so hung up on religion, I hope you get over it soon. It seems pathological to me.

      • What the hell is the “history of homosexuality”?

        How about the 20th century history of homosexual rights activism?

        Where each new argument was presented along with reassuring lies about how all gays want is whatever their latest goal is.

        How many lies can a community tell before people stop believing that community’s good faith?

      • So, what exactly have the consequences been of “homosexual rights activism”? What lies are you referring to? And how does any of this change the fact that it is unconstitutional to discriminate based upon homosexuality, especially considering that you even admit that it is determined at birth?

      • One result: Miller v. Jenkins.

        The very law that is supposed to protect the relationship between a child and her biological parents was exploited to grant lesbians a “right” to own a child, at the expense of what was best for that child.

        Because “marriage is not procreative” – until the marriage is legal, at which point it is “discriminatory” to differentiate between actual procreation vs. parasitic reproductive strategies. Granting gays “Equality” means that anyone and everyone must be forced into whatever lies are necessary to pretend that gays are too just as procreative as real married people, right?

      • By the way, I’m curious…

        Obviously, if one acknowledges the procreative basis of marriage, then it can’t be discriminatory to exclude same-sex couples.

        But if same-sex couples genuinely believe that marriage “is not procreative” – and thus their couplings are “the same as” married couples – why the need for lies?

        Why does Heather need to pretend that she “has two mommies”, instead of being allowed to have a relationship with her father?

      • Tell me why gays “need” – let alone deserve – the right to force a child to pretend that being motherless is not a loss.

        How is society made better if certain powerful family members are granted expansive rights over the weaker, more vulnerable family members? Even to the point of reassigning parentage for reasons other than the child’s best interest?

        Of course, women are reduced to “egg donors” or “gestational carriers”.

        This was viewed as a horrible, horrible thing when it was lefties fantasizing about Christians doing it: http://www.amazon.com/Handmaids-Tale-Margaret-Atwood/dp/038549081X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390709097&sr=1-1&keywords=handmaid%27s+tale

      • Yes, I am aware that the first generation of IVF children – the ones now coming of age – are raised primarily by heteros.

        Perhaps you are unaware that, so far, studies aren’t looking very promising, re: all the things they were supposed to “not mind”. They do mind. As one put it, “what made them think they had the right to do this to me?” (See: The Sperm Donor Kids Are Not All Right, Slate magazine, http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/06/the_spermdonor_kids_are_not_really_all_right.html)

        It’s a valid issue. But it has nothing to do with this issue. The fact that some hetero people do bad things is not an argument in favor of formally and officially institutionalizing those bad things.

      • >>Since there is absolutely nothing connecting homosexuality to increased bestiality nor pedophilia, then yes, it is a slippery slope fallacy.<<

        I sign of your idiocy or lack of honesty is that neither Griffon or myself are arguing that homosexuality leads to bestiality or pedophilia or anything else for that matter.

        In fact, that's an argument you're having with yourself. I suspect it's not the only one. I wonder who usually wins. Probably nobody.

      • It’s not that homosexuals become necrophiliacs*. That isn’t the argument.

        (*Necrophiliacs are feeling discriminated against, so I thought I’d be “inclusive”.)

      • We don’t allow people to consent to the desecration of their body.

        So? If sex is a basic human right, we HAVE to allow people to desecrate the human body.

        For the same reason that we HAVE to pretend that motherless children aren’t really motherless if they “have two daddies”.

        Because no lie is too much when sexual equality of outcome is THE priority – at the expense of what is true, or even what is healthy for children.

      • Traditionally, every major world religion except humanism has taught that homosexuality is a desecration of the human body, as well.

        Not clear what your point is. We are talking about declaring sex such an essential, such a fundamental human right, that people don’t even have the right to object – even if their religion teaches that this sort of sex is a sin. That’s a serious claim to make.

      • False. Many cultures performed homosexual marriages.

        Nobody cares what any religion had to say, especially if you’re simply appealing to tradition, another logical fallacy. Religion also says that it’s OK to kill all your enemies and keep their virgin daughters as spoils of victory. Not exactly the best place to pull morality from.

      • I am still waiting for a response that addresses the arguments I actually made (as opposed to the arguments you apparently wish I’d made).

      • Like what? There’s nothing to address. You know full well that your “non-religious” areguments are just weak attempts to deflect from the fact that the core of your argument is really religious.

        Heterosexuals can already get married and not have children. Gay marriage is not going to be detrimental to society or ruin the :”sanctity” of marriage; the Christian divorce rate has already done that.

        Start by being honest with yourself, then go from there. There’s a reason that support for your side is dwindling. Because you’re wrong.

      • Heterosexuals can already get married and not have children.

        You are reversing my argument.

        I would not mind if it were a matter of gays getting married and not having children.

        The problem is that they DO insist on the “right” to have children – and, worse, they insist on the right to use a specifically procreative benefit of marriage known as the “presumption of paternity” (that is, the right to be presumed the father of your wife’s child – a right that is supposed to go with the corresponding obligation to refrain from, you know, making babies with anyone but your spouse?)

      • So you think its a right to disallow homosexuals from having children? You realize that there is nothing stopping a homosexual from having heterosexual intercourse for the purpose of procreating, right?

        Whatever, I’m done. Not wasting any more time on someone who is never going to change their mind anyways.

      • I said nothing about disallowing homosexuals from having children.

        I simply do not see why they think they either need or deserve the right to cherry-pick the obligations that go with having children.

      • Or let me put it another way: licenses confer benefits.

        There’s nothing wrong with being eligible for the benefits but not using them. You don’t HAVE to catch fish even if you do have a fishing license.

        But that isn’t the same thing as demanding the benefits on behalf of a group that isn’t eligible for those benefits. Just because some people only using their driver’s license as a form of ID does not mean that blind people are entitled to a driver’s license (and full driving privileges), even if it is true that a state ID is “second best” compared to a license.

      • Many cultures performed homosexual marriages.

        And yet even cultures that were friendly toward homosexuality did not do the things I was objecting to.

        The Greeks, for instance, were very tolerant of homosexuality, but they still used women for procreation – and they let the woman have the relationship with the child, and the child have the relationship with the woman. There was no need to pretend that a man was a woman, or that there was no difference between the two types of couplings, or between the two sexes.

      • It was implied when you tried arguing that you weren’t making a slippery slope argument. The only way it isn’t is if you can show a correlation between homosexuality and increased rate of pedophilia or bestiality.

      • You can’t prove a religion untrue.

        Using “the scientific method” to prove or disprove metaphysical truths doesn’t work, because the scientific method presumes that whatever question it is seeking to answer is material in nature.

        Using Occam’s razor to prove the assumptions embedded within Occam’s razor is no different from using the Bible to prove the existence of God: it can’t be done without begging the question.

      • You can’t prove any negative claim. You can’t prove god DOESN’T exist. You can’t prove unicorns DON’T exist. You can’t prove Bigfoot DOESN’T exist. In fact, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. If you claim a god exists, prove it. It’s not anyone’s job to disprove it.

        That’s how the scientific method works. I should know, I’m a molecular biologist.

        I haven’t used Occam’s razor to argue anything. I assume you’re talking about how the universe came into existence? Right, nobody knows if a god exists or not. Due to a lack of evidence, I simply find it highly unlikely. However, to claim that not only does a god exists, but it is Yahweh/Jesus based upon ancient scrawlings, now that is laughable.

      • I haven’t used Occam’s razor to argue anything. I assume you’re talking about how the universe came into existence?

        No, I’m talking about what standards we use for establishing who proves what, and what counts as “proof”.

      • I did say “some”, because we were discussing precedent. My point was actually the opposite; I was facetiously asking that since some religions have been proven untrue, doesn’t that precedent dictate that all religions are untrue? This was done to show the fallacious reasoning behind the “precedent” argument that was being made.

      • So your argument is that the fact that there are no believers constitutes “disproving” the religion?

        A thing is true or false based on how many people believe it?

      • Okay. I’m going to drop it now. It’s obvious you aren’t serious; you’re just one of those guys who goes around trying to suck religious people into pointless arguments by making provocative claims and then shifting the burden of proof onto the other guy to prove you wrong – and I can guess that you probably play games with what “proof” you will and won’t accept, too.

      • The burden of proof is on you, you’re the claimant. If you have evidence that any religion is true, I’m available. Feel free to present. Elsewise, we’ll go with all the contradictory evidence.

      • Do you go around making the same provocative claim about how religion is “disproved” everywhere?

        Does it work every time? Do you manage to bait and switch lots of people?

        Does it feel good? Does it make you feel smart to trick people into accepting the burden of proof? Does it appease the burning anger you have about whatever it is that makes you so emotional about religion?

      • So you can’t or won’t back up your original claim.

        Your entire argument – that “religion has been disproven” – consists of nothing more than “if you don’t agree with me, the burden of proof lies with me, and I get to decide what proof counts”.

        Nice. (Not very honest, but I’m sure it’s effective.)

      • Again, so you think that Zeus, Thor, Odin, Baal are still possible? They might exist?

        What on Earth does that have to do with anything?

      • No, I just want you to put your money where your mouth is.

        What I “believe” is totally irrelevant. I am just curious if you are arguing in good faith (which IMO is relevant).

      • This is really fruitless. I was only making an example to show why using “precedent” is a bad idea, especially when you’re claiming that it gives credence to an otherwise fallacious slippery slope argument.

        Technically you can’t ever prove a negative, as I’ve stated, So technically, no, we don’t know 100% that Zeus or other deities aren’t real. But any amount of critical thinking and incorporating the evidence to the contrary leads to that conclusion for all intents and purposes.

      • A slippery slope argument is only a fallacy if there is no connection between the initiating event and the subsequent events.

        “If you leave the barn door open so that all the cows can get out…”

        “…then the dog will want out too” is a slippery slope.

        “…then there will be nothing keeping the horses in, either” is not.

        When your arguments loop around – so that you’re bringing up arguments that have already been rebutted, and pretending you didn’t hear the rebuttal – you might want to ask yourself what your real motives are.

      • The argument that homosexuality will lead to bestiality, pedophilia, the sky falling, etc. is a slippery slope fallacy.

        For proof, see every country and state that already allows gay marriage. Or just common sense.

      • I have already explained that my argument is NOT that gay people will become pedophiles or whatever.

        Enough with the straw man.

      • It is a slippery slope fallacy. Your grandiose claims are wholly unsubstantiated. You’re simply making an emotional appeal against things that you do not like. Give me a logical argument and we’ll debate. Give me illogic, and I will call you out on it and dismiss you.

        No, arguing that two consenting adults, regardless of sex, should have equal rights to enter into a legal contract together is not the same argument for either 1) A human abusing a non-conscious animal or 2) An adult abusing a child incapable of consenting.

        However, the arguments being trotted out against marriage equality are exactly the same ones that were used against iterracial marriage. Oh, and the sky didn’t fall then, either.

      • Actually the arguement is spot on but you refuse to agree because you will never give of yourself for the greater good. The only ignorance here is your comment, so why mention marriage that leads to bestiality and paedophilia? Are you hinting that modern man is smart enough to have a marrige equality with same sex couples?

      • Do you even logic?

        The argument is a classic slippery slope fallacy. He is insinuating that a bunch of future events will occur like a domino effect if we make one change, without any sort of logical rationale or evidence of such happening in the past. It’s sheer conjecture and paranoia, and not rooted in any facts. Not to mention, the entire premise is based upon a misrepresentation of what “income inequality” means. Rectifying income inequality is NOT redistribution of wealth or Communism. But, like I’ve been saying all along here, nobody on your side is interested in understanding that, only in intentionally misrepresenting the facts to support your agenda.

        The reason I brought up homosexual marriage was to give another example of a slippery slope fallacy to reinforce my point. I could have used a variety of arguments or topics, but that is an easy one to understand and relevant to current discussion.

      • Like a mosquito on a naked beach you jump from one to another. I have needed to read nearly all of your posting on this forum as I had no idea what you were getting at. You favour same sex marriages. This goes against the natural order, no one benefits, society does not benefit. Why communism was dragged in is beyond me. I remember growing up in a society where a man and a woman would be married, not three way groupings. But argue the matter with God as you will one day ang go marry a goat if you will. Your desire means nothing to me and when you get old and sick, go to a herd of goats for help.

      • Again, the only reason I brought up same-sex marriage was as an analogy to the slippery-slope argument being presented in support of your argument. Analogies help reinforce a point and make it more understandable.

        However, if you want to jump to that topic for discussion, it is not “against the natural order”. What does that even mean? Homosexuality has been observed in nature in hundreds of mammalian species. Additionally, science has evidence of developmental and epigenetic causes for homosexuality in humans, which show that it is a naturally-occurring behavior. What do you mean that society doesn’t benefit? Even if true, why is this relevant? The important thing is that NO ONE IS HARMED. It affects your life in no way.

        Communism was brought up because I was declaratively stating that the income inequality issue has nothing to do with Communism. This is because frequently the first response to such an idea is to hurl that term out.

        When you say “I remember growing up in a society where a man and a woman would be married, not three way groupings”, you’re simply arguing from tradition, a logical fallacy. There are people who also grew up with slavery, Jim Crow laws, or not being able to vote at age 18. Yeah, things change. Besides, polygamy isn’t being seriously discussed on a national level right now. And, of course, you finish with nonsene about marrying a non-conscious goat that cannot consent, therefore cannot be married, proving that my entire logical argument has fallen on deaf ears.

        I have no “desire” other than for equality and for your religion to not be forced onto others. I’m not gay. I’m happily married with 3 children. I’m not worried about a god that doesn’t exist, and on the extremely unlikely chance that one does, and it’s Yahweh, then that’s my business, and you need not worry about it.

      • The aboriginal people of Australia have ancient laws regarding homosexuality and it is one of the sins that tribal elders will spear you for. But since you are a happily married man the the subject becomes a moot point.

      • What does that have to do with anything? Native Americans recognized “two-spirit” people (homosexuals), and even performed wedding-like ceremonies for them. I fail to understand how any of this is relevant to legal marriage under the Constitution in 2014 America.

        No, it’s not a moot point, because I believe in equality. I also know several gay people.

      • Not all societies were then so bold. You place a great deal of store in your constitution, you think that because the hand of man says it OK then even God must obey your constitution? This has to be the height of arrogance. Your constitution is being unraveled even now by your wastrel president, your freedoms are being erodded and thw world is heading for a trainwreck, mostly due to American financiers.

      • No, I trust the Constitution because it is the foundation for our society and was drafted by brilliant men. Yet, you put so much stock into the Bible, which has nothing to do with our government, and was written by primitive violent sociopaths thousands of years ago? Seems legit.

        I don’t care if you like Obama or not. I’ve never defended him here. Yes, I agree with him on more topics than I would have with Romney, that doesn’t mean I like everything he does. That being said, your accusations of him “unraveling the Constitution” are nothing more than partisan hyperbole. The things you claim he’s doing are either exaggerated, or have been done by Republican Presidents as well; again, I’m not defending it, but stop acting like he’s the only one.

      • Drafted by brilliant men who had a confirmed belief in God.
        Compare those men to the men of today and you can’t, heck men cannot stand as straight and tall as those men. Though I do not doubt the sincerity of those men, they have actually been portrayed as larger than life, their image has been carefully built up. But they were men with the failings of men but today’s society is soft and so are the men, society is now inclusive and makes provision for diversity. Now your leader has unhindered access to unbelievable amounts of cash but it is paper, no other country in the world wants it, China has masses of it, so do the Japs. Your economy was allowed to deteriorate till no one made anything except for the Chinese so they grow richer and more powerful and you are in decline, I would venture to think that those decent men you spoke of would be busy with firing squads for a long long time. But none of it matters, your beliefs do not matter, you believe that life ends with death so why bother yourself about it, let your children deal with it as you did. No-one will be punished, not your leader who spends trillions of it, who should be arrested for planning against you and people like you. But you believe in an unfair nature where criminals get away with it so there is no natural justice.

      • Your comments have been reduced to the ramblings of a bitter, cynical old man. You’re not addressing any of the points I’m making and continue making assumptions about me which you have no basis for. There’s really no reason to continue the discussion any further.

      • You take my comments any way that you like. You reckon it’s rambling, well, just have a look at what falls out everytime your politicians open their mouths. You put your constitution up on a pedestal as high as you like but nothing that man creates will last the distance of time, you hide behind that constitution that you thinks makes you better than every one else but you are going broke and your country had better send a diplomat to hell. As it is about one third of your people are in goal and with your three strikes rules you don’t have to do much to get life. Cynical I may be, bitter, no. So if you do not wish to discuss then you do not have to,.

  8. I am offended by these socialists, who are they to decide what happens to what I have earned. If I work and am successful it is my decision what to do with those monies not the governments. I much rather live in a republic then a socialist nation. People of all backgrounds have to wake up and use their vote , voting for the most conservative person no matter the office.

  9. I am sure that Obama and folks like Jay-Z, Beyonce and the rest of the “Accepted Elites” will just be considered “more equal” than the rest of us.

  10. Alan Reynolds “income and wealth” book
    Rising inequality involves change in demographic that reflect changing patterns of work and productive output.

    ” The top fifth of households in terms of income include nearly six times as many full time workers as the bottom fifth. This is Because The Top 5th Is Composed Of 2 earners. While the bottom 5th is composed of retirees or young singles still in school, sick, disabled or work but in underground cash economy and not reported.

    The result in 2009 57% of household in the bottom 5th reported no income, not even part time. Therefore the difference in income does not reflect economic “inequality” but reflects the difference in production!!!!

    In addition the bottom 5th receive a lot of transfer income from gov’t programs ( forced redistribution of wealth)  ı.e. social security, disability, fed, state, local welfare. This Transfer Income Enable many of the bottom 5th not to work. In 2004 80% of bottom 5th received such transfers.  much higher now. For the top 5th less than 2% received such transfer.

    In addition over time, income from work naturally increase with rising wages but transfer payments stay flat, increasing the “gap” of inequality.

    Another important difference in income can be found in age and experience of workers. Median income of household where the head of family is 45 to 54 yrs old is close to 3 times as large as the median income of families where the household is younger than 25.

    Another important factor is education. Median income of household where the head holds a college degree is 5 times as a household with a high school education.

    Another factor is The rise in woman work force over the last 50 years, increasing the number of 2 earners couples, resulting in more social “inequality”

    Also the Increase in the # of single household are also increasing “inequality” young people delaying marriage and widows all add to the large single house hold stats. Along with growing single mother with children
    Increase in immigrants in recent decades of lower income, lessor skilled with little education also increases “income inequality”

    Theses difference reflect again not unfair economic inequality but rather difference in productive output and demographics.

  11. As soon as the Obama’s & every member of Congress makes the same as all of the rest of us! But with all of the funds that him & his wife have stolen would come out to change the inequality to equality! GIVE UP YOUR PAY OBAMA!

  12. At least JayZ and Beyonce provide jobs, which is more than O’Breezy has done. Do we really want to cull the strongest of our herds and turn it over to the weakest ? In the wild, it’s survival of the fittest, it’s how the whole herd grows stronger.

      • Please. I know she never said anything about Darwinian evolution; the fact is that the right-wing is rife with creationists and other deniers of evolution; there is also great overlap between these people and those who espouse the type of Darwinian evoultion being advocated here. So, yes, my point about the irony of the situation is quite valid, even if Denise here doesn’t personally doubt evolution. It was more of a general commentary.

        Yes, I absolutely can argue against her social Darwinism argument. Fool.

      • Please……show us the links from one species to another in evolution. So far it’s not there in the fosil record.

  13. now everybody can go to aspen and hawaii and play golf for free and everybody can have the same money that obama has in his account….God belss de socialism !!!!

  14. If they fall within the right tax bracket (back in the Golden Era of the 50s and 60s , that’d be 70-90%), sure they will. Unless they use the same accountants as Mitt and offshore the dough.

  15. You’re (likely purposely) misconstruing the issue. Income inequality isn’t about making sure that everyone has equal wealth; it’s about reducing the top-heavy wealth owned by the richest fraction of a percent of people, and making sure that the poorest among us can at least have access to the basic necessities. There’s no reason for a few dozen individuals to have more wealth than the bottom half of the population combined. If you don’t think there is a problem with this, you’re a sociopath.

    You either are completely ignorant as to what the concept is, or you’re willfully misrepresenting to try to smear anyone on the left as “Socialists/Communists/Marxists” to rile up your uneducated voting base.

    • Mr. West is not “misrepresenting” anything. However, you, Prototype Atheist, are showing that you have dangerous ideas that are more in keeping with the horrors that was the USSR and other Marxists entities. It is NOT the place of the government or anyone else to concern themselves with some in society having more “wealth” than others. It certainly should not be into “redistribution of wealth.” To do so is to violate the COTUS and the very principles this country was founded upon. Our ONLY concern should be to create a free market where gainful employment is available to all so the “poor” will have “basic necessities.” Forcible THEFT of the “rich” to pay for “poor” is suited only for fiction.

      • You are an imbecile. You literally just did exactly what I said you guys were doing. You are using this intentional misrepresentation of the position to label us as “Marxists”. You fell right in line with my prediction.

        This argument is just as honest as me stating that the whole “pro-life” movement is meant to control women and force religion onto the populace, not about saving babies. If you find that representation of the pro-life position to be accurate, then it’s no wonder you find Mr. West’s drivel accurate as well.

        Income inequality =/= redistribution of wealth.

      • You could be right in your rants IF mr. Obama and gang were trying to take the wealth away from those “rich elites” and give it to the poor. However, take the time to learn what they are doing, manufacturing programs that take away everything the average American citizen works for and give it to those who are the “rich elite”. Goes right along with him and gaggle of followers who insist on spending millions of dollars for vacations and blowouts at the White House while there is an ever increasing number o0f people who have no jobs, means of support and don’t know where their next meal is coming from. Tell all your “intellectual” garbage to those who have lost their income, homes and insurance since this administration took over the care and feeding of their pocketbooks.

      • You’re right. Obama didn’t take the wealth away from his rich cronies. He took it away from the middle class and GAVE IT to his rich cronies making himself and them richer.

        We had 3 businesses for 40 years. We were not rich. We supported our family and many other families. Obama took all of that away because of his obamanomics and regulating the small business right out of business. That’s not spreading the wealth. That’s destroying the businesses who hire other employees so they TOO can support their families.

        Mandatory government spreading of the wealth is not taking care of the poor. Obama has taken care of himself, the cronies who surround him, Wall Street, the banks, the Unions, all his corrupt ilk who put him in the White House — it’s repayment for their support — via taxpayer money! He’s taken from us, the middle class, lowered us to poverty level, put more of our money into his own pocket, and gave to his RICH CRONIES! WAKE UP! He didn’t become a multi-millionaire being a community organizer!

      • Yes, because if there’s one root cause to economic calamity, it’s the President. I mean, the economy is so simple, there are no other factors involved, certainly not the housing collapse, out of control bankers, or unscrupulous corporations.

        Thanks, Obama.

      • You are the imbecile. You went from income inequality, to Christian to pro-life to marriage equality and all it shows you you are a brainwashed mess and are in your own fantasyland. Join the real world.

      • No, I’m a freethinker. I make up my own mind. Your refusal to admit that Mr. West’s opinion here is nothing but disinformation and propaganda shows that you are the sheep here.

        Yes, I brought up marriage equality as an analogy, that’s the only reason. Because saying that everyone who thinks income inequality is a problem is looking for a handout is just as illogical as saying you’re a homosexual if you support marriage equality. It’s a relatable way to get the point across.

        I brought up Christianity because conservatism is rife with fundamentalist Christians, which is amazing considering that Jesus himself would have never advocated for social Darwinism. He clearly stated many times that the rich are not going to get into heaven and that helping the poor is a virtue. To claim you follow Jesus and espouse Ayn Rand libertarianism is to be a hypocrite.

      • “No, I’m a freethinker. I make up my own mind.” REALLY? So what makes you think the rest of us don’t? GOD gave you the ability to THINK FOR YOURSELF. Scary huh? So we too are FREE THINKERS when we read what Mr. West has to say and CHOOSE to AGREE! Just because you’re an atheist doesn’t mean you’re the only free thinker in the world.

        And keep this in mind when you said: He clearly stated many times that the rich are not going to get into heaven and that helping the poor is a virtue. America is the most GIVING country in the world. WE DON’T NEED OBAMA MANDATING WE DO IT. We already do, because Christians DO THAT! THey give from their hearts willingly. And America gives more foreign aid to the world than any other country. How many countries give foreign aid to America? ZERO!

        And don’t be so quick to say a rich man will NOT go to Heaven. You don’t know their hearts. “With man this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible.” I’ve known a couple very rich men who were Christians and shared their wealth willingly because they believed God gave them the ability of wealth in order to help the poor.

      • I never said I’m the only freethinker in the world, but Mr. West is dispensing fallacious propaganda, and the fact that you refuse to even consider my counterarguments shows that you aren’t interested in thinking for yourself, you’re only interested in confirming your own bias in an echo chamber.

        Again, you’re twisting around the words of your alleged God and Savior to suit your own selfish agenda. You want a Top Ten list of “Only in America”? #1 Only in America can people claim to be Christians while completely ignroing everything that Christ had to say about being humble and helping the poor.

      • Just reading your rants I shake my head, I pity you and your so called ideology Also you might read the Bible before you start telling others what it says. Jesus said it would be hard for a rich man to go to heaven not that a rich man would not go to heaven. It would be hard because he would have to put Jesus first and a lot (not all) rich men put money first. Jesus did say helping the poor is a priority and if you are a follower of Christ Jesus you help the poor, that is a given. Helping the poor is not income equality. Maybe you should do more freethinking.

      • Funny that you should call well-reasoned arguments rants. But I bet you listen to Rush Limbaugh and think he’s the pinnacle of intellect?

        You’re just another hypocritical, ignorant Christian who wants to twist things around to suit your selfish worldview. You’d be better off worshipping Ayn Rand.

      • Soooo……Jesus Christ was also a socialist? I think not. He also said “the poor will always be with you”. “Charity” from the rich or anybody is quite different than government controlled “income equality” that marx and engles came up with in the 1850’s. VERY different.

      • Income inequality and redistribution of wealth is SOCIALIST! and COMMUNIST ideas! DO YOUR [email protected]#%$^ HOMEWORK! It’s NOT AMERICAN. And if BO believes in redistribution of wealth so deeply, why didn’t he write out a check to Joe the Plumber and set an example?

      • Thanks for being the living embodiment of the communist manifesto………something I have read….have YOU?

    • There is nothing stopping the bottom half from going to school, getting an education and getting a decent paying job. My father grew up poor as dirt and managed to do it and instilled the same work ethic in me. I, in turn, did the same and mind you, I didn’t qualify for one dime of free college tuition. I was forced to take out loans for undergrad and graduate school AND pay them back. Stop looking for handouts. I have no empathy for lazy individuals. Life isn’t fair, and those top-heavy rich folks are the one’s employing people. Think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.

      And by the way, you completely misused the word sociopath. I actually went to grad school and received my M.A in counseling and LPC license. Someone who has a differing opinion than yours does not qualify as a sociopath, but believing so does qualify YOU as a typical left wing fanatic. It appears you are the uneducated one here. Don’t throw out big words without consulting the DSM-V next time.

      • Oh, I see. So your anecdotal evidence simply trumps all other arguments?

        I’m not looking for handouts. Telling everyone who supports efforts to curb income inequality that they are looking for a handout is just as stupid as telling everyone who supports marriage equality that they are a homosexual.

        Your too-often repeated lie regarding “job creators” is nonsense. The obscenely wealthy hoard their wealth, invest it to become richer, and create nothing. Sure, on their way up they created jobs, but there comes a certain point where this is no longer true, yet they are continuing to amass massive wealth.

        The reason I use the term sociopath is because it is apt. It means you have little concern for the welfare of others. Your belief in social Darwinism makes you a sociopath. And don’t even try telling me you’re a Christian because you have absolutely nothing in common with the teachings of Jesus when it comes to this topic.

      • sorry. “invest it to become richer” = putting more money into the economy = creates jobs. disincentivize investment and increase tax load = taking more money out of the economy (unless you think giving more money to government = growing the economy) = promotion of “hoarding”. i really wonder if you know what you’re talking about.

      • Yeah, you’re right. Stashing cash in banks overseas to avoid taxation is really stimulating our economy. There must be so many Americans working in those banks, after all, you claim it creates jobs.

        Besides, the jobs that are created by the extremetly rich are useless. They pay minimum wage, which is pathetically low, and even full-time employees still can’t support themselves without government assistance. Sure, if the minimum wage was lowered to $3/hour, we could create a ton of jobs!! But a job that doesn’t support you is worthless.

      • Canada’s version of David Letterman’s Top 10.
        #2 Only in America . . . could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion Dollars more than it has per year — for total spending of $7 Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.

        #1 Only in America . . . could the rich people — who pay 86% of all income taxes — be accused of not paying their ‘fair share’ by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all. ‘Every country has the government it deserves.’ ANY QUESTIONS?

        BO SUCKS — no doubt about it. He bashes everyone that doesn’t believe in his socialist, Marxist, Commie agenda. And destroying the rich to make us all equal is just another commie idea! Everyone EQUAL except for BO and his corrupt cronies!

      • It is nothing but smearing. And it’s all you continue to do, by calling me “Putin” and “godless” in a manner that is clearly intended to be insulting.

        There has been no attempt at honest intellectual discourse from your side, only illogic. You may as well just concede defeat.

      • It wasn’t a stupid comment at all. If you believe in social Darwinsim, you’re a sociopath. Period. You have no empathy for your fellow man. If you find it insulting, you should probably reconsider your position.

    • And would you please explain HOW you do that rationally? Because something sounds good does not make it possible. There will ALWAYS be super rich .

      • There is a varitey of ways. Raise taxes if you earn over a certain amount of income annually, regardless of how the money is earned (capital gains, etc.). Close tax loopholes. Don’t allow the rich to store money overseas to avoid taxes. Just a few ways. I’m no economist, but that is a start. Again, we’re not talking about people who make $1 million per year here. We’re talking the absurdly wealthy.

        It’s amazing that people can support our government going to war or giving billions to foreign countries to help their people, but suggest that maybe we do something about the inequality in our own country, and everyone loses their mind.

      • Sounds great! Its really perfect! Are you that educated that you have lost all commonsense! That world will never exist ! Because to achieve you have to hurt a lot of people.. Just to start ,you say “absurdly rich.”Just think please ! In the real world ,WHAT can the absurdly rich do,? (leave for one)or better yet what could 300 or all absurdly rich do together! (France tried) ANYTHING! They could buy and create their own country and economy! There are absurdly rich through out the world and every country has them. There will always be someplace for them and they would be welcomed with open arms.So what are you proposing? One world government to prevent them having their own country or relocating to another ?One person making the rules? How other way can it be? This is the wall your suggestions run up against and then you run out of ways to further them besides all out anarchy or a h-e-l-l of a war the so-called have-nots could never win ! USE some commonsense. Please if you are that educated answer me a question . How many people do you think are directly or indirectly are employed by those absurdly rich? Contrary to what you believe that money is working somewhere . This is why the founders set up the Government we have and it has worked for sometime now.It is the best place to start if you ever want to become absurdly rich. You believing ,you can do anything about the absurdly rich is just absurd , About absurd as you believe in creationism .

      • Oh no! Poor insanely wealthy people! They’d only have enough money left for 50 lifetimes instead of 100 lifetimes! Wouldn’t want to hurt them!!

        Because the poor aren’t being hurt more and more every day and the middle class isn’t losing disposable income every day…

      • So you come back with sarcasm without answering anything in the post. Again ,what do you propose and did I say anything that wasn’t correct? Educate me please as you seem to have the simple answers.

      • I am not done with pointing out the facts of your absurdities of living in the real world VS the one in your mind. Your rant about “It’s amazing that people can support our government going to war or giving billions to foreign countries to help their people” Yes ,help their people against dictators and governments that suppresses their people. The support is freedom of opportunities for prosperity . You claim we do it for equality is false. I am not a christian fanatic right-wing whatever you want label me but here is something that makes perfect sense ” God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
        The courage to change the things I can,
        And wisdom to know the difference.”

        You sort of lose it at the wisdom to know the difference.

    • Ha ha!!!! Hey Dumbass!! You need to pray…..alot…….you are an Idiot!!!! Your parents as stupid as you?? Go with God boy! I will pray for you….start talking your trash in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6……..

    • Move to Russia if you don’t like EQUAL OPPORTUNITY in the U.S. That SAME opportunity is available to ALL. The richest create jobs! Bill Gates #1 – Microsoft; Warren Buffett #2, Larry Ellison – Oracle; Christie Walton & Family – Walmart. BO doesn’t create jobs. He likes to manipulate the numbers and make you think so. But look around you. WE’RE ALL UNEMPLOYED or on Welfare or Food Stamps or have had to retire early because there is NO WORK, or because we’ve LOST our businesses that WERE successful for 45 years!!! The FAILURE of OBAMA surrounds you. America is in decline BECAUSE of BO’s Marxist agenda and Socialist thinking. America has worked JUST FINE for 237 years — opening the door of opportunity to all, obviously proven because people risk their lives to get here. Do they risk their lives to get to Russia? or Afghanistan? or ANY Communist country? BO thought America needed his “fundamental transformation,” and the STUPIDS didn’t have a clue what the words meant, so they sold out OUR FREEDOM for THEIR FREEBIES. And once again they’re listening to his ‘play on words’ making the morons think that we need to all be equal — that is COMMIE THINKING! It is not AMERICA!

    • Canada’s version of David Letterman’s Top 10. #10: Only in America could Obama talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.

      • Yes, and sadly that’s true. The only problem is that you’re ignoring the fact that Obama is far from the first politician, let alone President, to have fundraisers catering the the mega-rich.

        Your bias is showing.

      • He didn’t say he was the first. He’s just pointing out the absurd hypocrisy of using anti rich rhetoric while still being a sycophant of and for the wealthy. Try to keep up.

  16. Seriously? Some of you think that everyone has the right to take from someone that worked hard all there life to have something? I look at it this way: You chose your path and I chose mine. I’m not a millionaire nor am I rich and barely middle class anymore.
    I worked 40 years to save for when I could retire. Things do not always work out like we plan. Because of a surprise diagnosis I ended up retiring 2 years before I wanted to even though I was eligible. Even with insurance and my retirement, I no longer have my savings because of medical bills. Funny, I don’t remember you sitting at my desk with your check book to pay my living expenses and medical bills. Here is a News Flash for you: I surely don’t see the President, his wife, his minions, Nancy P., Harry Reid and the other idiots wanting INCOME EQUALITY opening their checkbooks and offering a hand out. NO President of the United States has the right nor is it legal for him to do Income Equality! You think you’re going to receive a ton of money every month to live high on the hog? I have news for you, you will be lucky if you can buy bread and milk. His goal is not for you to have a middle class life; it’s to have control over everyone and everything in our Country! They will have all the money, not you and me. Do yourself a favor, go research and learn the truth and Wake Up!

  17. Who will provide job opportunities now that Obama has made us ALL POOR?? I have never been hired by a poor person. And I guess I won’t have the ‘opportunity’ to ever get ahead again now that we’re all going to be equal — being BO already took away all my assets due to his failing economic agenda: Our home, our car, our savings, our retirement, our health care. BO wants us all to live in stacked 10-story high mini-apartments, (while he enjoys the White House), and drive the same ‘greenie’ car that gets plugged in every night (while he rides in the beast with a chauffeur and flies in AirForce One), never travel to another state because my look-like-everyone-else’s-greenie car will only go 75 miles to the next plug-in recharge (while BO and his cronies travel to all parts of the world on taxpayer dollars). Oh how fun EQUALITY will be. I can hardly wait for us to all be the same in every aspect of our lives. The “American Dream has died because of the @#$%^ democraps and their leftie/commie agenda, and there is nothing more to dream for — or work for — because we’ll all be BObots. The whole idea of AMERICA was that everyone had EQUAL opportunity — you just had to get off your lazy nanny-state butt and grab it.

  18. Noraiam, Are you a Federal Worker, in the Military or retired from either? If not, why not? You made your choice and I made mine. I worked and worked damn hard my whole career. Nothing was ever given to me, why, because I worked for what I got! Our job was to support our Military and make sure they had what they needed. Federal Workers don’t take home a high paycheck like the Elected Officials and certain ones in a certain position. Do all of them earn it? NO! You have that everywhere just not in the Federal Government. I don’t have a problem with our Elected Officials being cut, because they don’t perform, nor do they work the years as others do to earn it. The Federal Government does not only employ Civilians, they also employ Retired Military and Contractors. Quit grouping all Federal Employees with the Elected Officials and the bad Employees under Obama.

  19. “””””The Census Bureau’s official measure of income inequality — called the Gini index — shows similar results. During the Bush years, the index was flat overall — finishing in 2008 exactly where it started in 2001.

    It’s gone up each year since Obama has been president and now stands at all-time highs.

    Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/073013-665705-income-gap-grew-sharply-under-obama.htm#ixzz2rSjNhhr4
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook””””””

  20. Research by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez shows that since the Obama recovery started in June 2009, the average income of the top 1% grew 11.2% in real terms through 2011.

    The bottom 99%, in contrast, saw their incomes shrink by 0.4%.

    Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/073013-665705-income-gap-grew-sharply-under-obama.htm#ixzz2rSjumeI2
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

    • What recovery, economy has been in the dumps as long as he has been in office and the number of unemployed people just keeps climbing.

      • It’s been in the dumps since the dems took over congress in Bush’s term. Not blaming Bush, but when that happened he was very stifled. As a musician……it’s hurt MY business by 2/3rds both in teaching private students(via BO’s unemployment rate) and in performing.(weddings, bar mitzvahs, corporate events all ceased due to them not able to afford hiring a band)

  21. After reading some of these posts, I realize mine will be coming out of left field.
    First……. People in the entertainment industry, whether it be singers, actors, athletes, make astronomical amounts of money because we allow them to. If people weren’t willing to pay $20 for a cd or $100(@least) for concert tix, they wouldn’t have private jets, multi-million dollar houses, and diamonds the size of my fist. WE put them on that pedestal. WE decide they are WORTH more than the next guy. How, then, can we complain?
    Second……. If incomes were more evened out, people wouldn’t have anything to aspire to. No goals to work toward. Why get a good education, if you can make just as much running a cash register @ Walmart? Why learn ENGLISH, if you don’t need good communication skills? Wanting your children to have a better life than you did, will be non-existent.
    In this country, we are afforded EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. What you do w/ that is up to YOU.

    • Well said! I only support the ones that support our Country and the people. If they support the Democrats in any way, they don’t get a dime from me.

    • Yep…..but under BO’s and Alinsky’s system there IS NO “money” so there are no “incomes” to be evened out. Just government control. “Memorize your lines and move as directed”.

  22. NOTE TO SELF (Re Taking Over the World):

    1) Take some pages from history –

    a) Start by convincing a gullible public a certain group needs to be targeted.

    b) Chose any group, as long as some negative human trait, like greed or envy, can be used to paint them villains.

    c) Using the rich, for an example, highlight their success and compare it to the lack thereof for others.

    d) Convince the gullible it’s not their fault they are not rich (schools have already gone a long way toward getting this done with their “each kid should feel good about themselves programs). Better yet, convince them it’s the rich holding them down.
    e) Avoid any focus on who we look to for jobs, where the majority of taxes come from, and so forth. Keep the focus away from that I live comfortably, well above the level of those being duped.

    f) While everyone is rushing off to get their ropes, implement laws and things under the guise of solving the problem, diverting attention away from the erosion of rights, opportunity and ………………….


  23. “Income inequality’ has never been worse than during the 5 yrs. of Obama’s reich. When is he and all multibillionaire Democrats going to sign over their fortunes to the American people in order to make Obama’s dream come true? Obama only condones wealth owned by non-liberals. Hypocrite canine.

  24. There are poor people everywhere in the world, under every existing economic and political system. As Winston Churchill noted, representative democracy is a horrible political system. It does however have the virtue of being better than all the others. The same can be said of capitalism with respect to economic systems.

  25. If there is no incentive to move “up up and away”….ALL will be lost…. way, way down.
    There isn’t a society on Earth that has EVER made this work to ant degree whatsoever.
    I guess that pretty much puts the POS Obama in the same class as an amoeba, now doesn’t it?
    a•me•ba or a•moe•ba (əˈmi bə)
    n., pl. -bas, -bae (-bē).

    1. any of numerous one-celled aquatic or parasitic protozoa of the order Amoebida, having a jellylike mass of cytoplasm that forms temporary pseudopodia, by which the organism moves and engulfs food particles.

    2. a protozoan of the genus Amoeba, inhabiting bottom vegetation of freshwater ponds and streams: used widely in laboratory studies.

  26. If there is no incentive to move “up up and away”….ALL will be lost…. way, way down.
    There isn’t a society on Earth that has EVER made this work to any degree whatsoever.
    I guess that pretty much puts the POS Obama in the same class as an amoeba, now doesn’t it?
    a•me•ba or a•moe•ba (əˈmi bə)
    n., pl. -bas, -bae (-bē).

    1. any of numerous one-celled aquatic or parasitic protozoa of the order Amoebida, having a jellylike mass of cytoplasm that forms temporary pseudopodia, by which the organism moves and engulfs food particles.

    2. a protozoan of the genus Amoeba, inhabiting bottom vegetation of freshwater ponds and streams: used widely in laboratory studies.

  27. I hate socialism. I’m I hate that I pulled myself up from my bootstraps. From Chicago no less! I’ve made smart investments and worlkes really hard, I refuse to just hand it over to anyone else. I came from just as bad circumstances as “those in need”.

    • We are all in some way or another, in need. The real problem tho, is that obama and his pals of Communist Party USA think they should decide what people need or don’t need instead of people deciding that for themselves. Funny, nowhere is it mentioned on my birth certificate that I must report in to anyone so that I can be told what exactly I should want or have or not want or have for the rest of my life.

  28. The late Lady Margaret Thatcher slams the President’s new concern about “inequality” but good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnOGaQX04Cs

    Not only does this new emphasis on “equality” by our 15 multi-million-dollar-vacations-a year-president in the face of the lowest workforce participation rate in 40 years set the record for the decade for both hypocrisy and chutzpah, it shows a horrible lack of imagination and originality.

    This “equality” thing has been used by socialists to bamboozle soft headed people going all the way back to Jan Matthys and Jan Bockelson’s (a.k.a. John of Leiden’s) prototype socialist terror state in Munster 1534-35. Of course their reign of terror yielded greater not less inequality. Socialism in reality yields GREATER inequality than even relative laissez faire capitalism as, Frederic Bastiat pointed out back in 1850, while keeping all people except the leadership elite of the socialist tyranny poorer.

    The President and his cronies have taken on living by using the government that is SUPPOSED to protect the Life, Liberty, and Property of each citizen to rob, enslave, and murder. The-in-the-gutter loss of hope Obamanomics economy is causing thousands to give up and commit suicide. The Prez might as well have put a loaded gun to their heads and pulled the trigger.

    On the other hand they condemn those people who finance and organize the production that provides jobs and high-quality low-cost goods to workers as SELFISH and GREEDY. Phooey!

    May God grant Lady Thatcher every happiness Heaven can give!

  29. obama drank the kool aid and just llike hillary clinton, fell for what Alinksy tried pushing on the streets in effort to create a land of the “Haves and the Have Nots” but turned out that Alinsky was nothing but a street thug.

    Page 3 “Barack Obama’s Rules For Revolution The Alinsky Model” by David Horowitz:

    “Saul Alinsky was born in Chicago in 1909 and died in California in 1972. His preferred self-description was “rebel” and his entire life was devoted to organizing a revolution in America to destroy a system he regarded as oppressive and unjust. By profession he was a “COMMUNITY ORGANIZER”, the SAME term employed by his most famous disciple, BARACK OBAMA, to describe HIMSELF.”


  30. obama’s income equality speeches makes it sound as tho we are to sign up on some list so that he can know which people are receiving “unequal” income versus “equal” income. I mean, how else will he know where to send money?? (sarc) Or, like everything else, does he think he can decide that for us, too ??? oh brother…getting deeper by the day…went from needing hip waders to needing chest waders!

  31. Imposing “income equality” on Jay Z and Beyoncé is not going to happen! The racists in the Executive Branch want to steal money and seize power from whites and give it to blacks…in black minority apartheid circles, it’s called reparations.

  32. President Obama jumps from issue to issue based on polls, income equality is the only issue he has left to talk about. Ask Obama to Lead by Example and cut his salary to what an average American makes. In his case, income inequality adjustment makes sense as the most destructive, divisive and incompetent President of all times. Yes I said it, worst than Jimmy Carter.

  33. No,no, we are just misunderstanding what the left is doing. There is an easy explanation. The people that he likes and hangs around with (the leftist elites) will be the ruling class so they will be compensated highly for their superior intellect. The rest of us are mere ignorant hoards of working class stiffs who will be rewarded with enough to eat, maybe.There is to be no middle class, that would be unfair to the poor so we all have to be equally poor, except of course the elite ruling class. There, easy explanation of equal as per the socialists in charge.

  34. As Long as every one, I mean everyone, zero exceptions, has to do the same thing,
    Work 70 hrs a week, work, not just show up, keep your wild thoughts to break time, work sat and sundays, don’t get paid when uou don’t work, take gut wrenching chances on investments and new hiree’s, do’t get paid because the other party is slow to pay,
    Oh your talking about everybody, from President of the US on down right thru sports, advertising execs, investment exec’s, business owners, under employed, un-employed, Doctors, Nurses, and hops worker, welfare recipients, disabled, those in prison, felons, everybody, gets the same pay, does the same work, 70 hrs a week, and no matter what happens, we all get paid $20.00 AN HOUR day in day out,,,,,the balance of the money goes to the who, the Gov’t, because they are so good at managing money,
    no more need for congress, senate, unions, will need only one person in charge, does this sound familiar, no more commissions, no rewards for working harder,smarter, farmers have earn only minimally, WHAT ARE YOU NUCKING FUTS< Grow up get over yourself, and your madness for creating Zombies, Just get rid of Congress, senate,GOP,aides, excess entitlement programs, start over because your path will destroy America…LUNatics ignite, Liberals wake up, Republicans head out ur ass, and Democrats start paying for your freebies you keep handing out.

    • The scary thing is that you really believe this. Doesn’t walmart have the same interest in raising amerricans’ income so they can sell more products and make more money? Trust me, more people will spend their extra income at wally world than on jay z albums. And what of the jay z albums sold by Walmart. I don’t think you’ve thought your position through very carefully. 😉

      • If they had an interest in raising american’s income they would start with their employees. Wal-Mart could not live without government subsidising it’s employees. Jay-Z fans go on I-tunes.

      • Walmart has created more millionaires out of lower to middle class people (through stock options for employees) than about any other corporation with the possible exception of McDonald’s.

    • But then again………..what if BO’s government “takes over” all the Wallmarts and converts them into government “redistribution centers”. Everybody “equal” gets their ration book for the month and their “number in line” to stand in line all day outside former Walmarts to get their monthly “rations” eh? Maxine Waters words to the oil company execs are still ringing in my ears. She, BO and marx are wrong!!! Socialism and communism are evil and wrong!! When are you guys going to figure that out?

  35. Will the highly over-paid government leaders and polititions be participating in said “equality” program? Mr.President, you don’t need that $400,000+ a year you make off of the working class people because that’s not “equality”.

  36. Jefferson didn’t have to worry about income equity since he owned slaves. I wonder if he used the children he produced with his slave mistress as tax deductions? Also, did his slaves know about these unalienable rights Jefferson was talking about?

    unalienable rights, from the Creator, are life, liberty, and the
    pursuit of happiness.” And a government that believes it’s big enough to
    try and guarantee happin
    Read more at http://www.allenbwest.com/2014/01/im-waiting-obama-apply-income-equality-jay-z-beyonce/#bqaj0FzWkvtYD4o5.99
    unalienable rights, from the Creator, are life, liberty, and the
    pursuit of happiness.” And a government that believes it’s big enough to
    try and guarantee happin
    Read more at http://www.allenbwest.com/2014/01/im-waiting-obama-apply-income-equality-jay-z-beyonce/#bqaj0FzWkvtYD4o5.99

      • I know , I was trying to be funny. Sorry for my fable attempt . If there was a tax back then , Jefferson couldn’t use them as deductions anyway, Slaves were considered property, even if they are your kids.

  37. Beyonce’s latest self-titled CD “Beyonce” (explicit version) $15.88
    Jay Z’s latest CD “Magna Cart…Holy Grail (explicit) $14.88 or….
    the “edited” version, ALSO $14.88 (some people might feel ripped off and hey, does Jay Z know Beyonce makes MORE than HIM???)

    A Leftist Liberal’s ignorance: Priceless!

    • Jay-Z net worth 500 million, Beyonce net worth 350 million
      Dumbass conservatives who don’t know what they are talking about: Priceless.

      • So what you are saying is that it’s obama’s job to bring in big money. We kind of all knew that..

      • It’s true Jay-Z doesn’t need Beyoncé to be a star. However, we do know what we are talking about and you just proved it. How about if their net worth is reduced to $100 apiece and they donate the rest to Obozo to distribute?

  38. Thing is…..communism has no “income allowed” to the proletariate in the first place. Things like “currency” are not allowed as well as trade………not allowed. I think BO and his ilk are trying to drive us towards that goal. Total dependence on his government for all needs of which his government “sees fit”. Thus the movie actor/actress are on the same “playing field” as the janitor. All giving their all for the collective and of course the collective’s “leaders”. Orwell was right…..just a few decades off.

  39. Yes, when will all Obama’s good friends give up their giant incomes? When will they go to the White House and give FREE concerts and then come to my town green and give the same to the little people? No, we cannot have that! Not his friends! Who would give him all the green to live his luxurious lifestyle and send his kids to private school and give Michelle her diamonds and get him elected? No, that is for the little people, the serfs, the bottom feeders, US! Same as communism and socialism has ALWAYS been and ALWAYS been. You may have or not have read Atlas Shrugged but have you read Ayn Rand’s ANTHEM takes about an hour or WE THE LIVING takes longer) but they explain it all and HOW IT DOES NOT WORK!!! If everybody gets everything equal but not for equal effort why should anybody study to be a doctor? My doctor told me that 3 of his friends are dropping Medicare because of EQUALITY of PAY, he has not yet because he is dedicated but how dedicated can you be for NINE DOLLARS to see a patient? Well, you liberal/communist/progressives wanted it, you got it, Hope you like it. I don’t see Obama giving up his stuff or Congress or his cronies or Soros or ANY of his rich friends. It does not work that way. READ ANIMAL FARM. READ LORD OF THE FLIES. It is all out there. READ before they are banned. WAKE UP!!!
    CONDITIONS OF RESPONSE ARE: Continual violators are GUARANTEED that their posts will not be read as they are screened by name, by a third party, before passing remaining posts on. No response will be made to liberals/progressives/marxists/communists, cretins, misogamists, misogynists,aborticide supporters, profanity users, sexual reference users, practicing sodomites and other sexual perversion supporters including gay-marriage, anti-Christians, pro-islamic. climate hoax believers ,anti-2nd Amendment (especially non-Americans), anti-veteran or non-supporters of our troops, feminists, puerile people, insulters of my husband/family, insulters of the handicapped, those who cannot behave like a ladies or gentlemen or those unable to understand what this means and expect a response not forthcoming. For the rest, GOD BLESS you, my brothers and sisters. As, for my brave, veteran husband, I love him to the moon and back and respect him above all others. He is the love of my life, soulmate, protector,and caregiver for I am physically disabled..

    • The Elephants Knew Some will say there is no God, try and tell that to the elephants….. THE ELEPHANTS’ JOURNEY TO PAY RESPECT, BUT HOW
      DID THEY KNOW? Lawrence Anthony, a legend in South Africa and author of 3 books including the bestseller, The Elephant Whisperer. He bravely rescued wildlife and rehabilitated elephants all over the globe from
      human atrocities, including the courageous rescue of Baghdad Zoo animals during US invasion in 2003. On March 7, 2012 Lawrence Anthony died. He is remembered and missed by his wife, 2 sons, 2 grandsons, and numerous elephants. Two days after his passing, the wild elephants showed up at his home led by two large matriarchs. Separate wild herds arrived in droves to say goodbye to their beloved ‘man-friend’. A total of 31 elephants had patiently walked over 12 miles to get to his South African House. Witnessing this spectacle, humans were obviously in awe not only because of the supreme intelligence and precise timing that these elephants sensed about Lawrence’s passing, but also because of the profound memory and emotion the beloved animals evoked in such an
      organized way: Walking slowly, for days, making their way in a solemn one-by-one queue from their habitat to his house. Lawrence ‘s wife, Francoise, was especially touched, knowing that the elephants had not been to his house prior to that day for well over 3 years! But yet they knew where they were going. The elephants obviously wanted to pay their deep respects, honouring their friend who’d saved their lives – so much respect that they stayed for 2 days 2 nights without eating anything. Then one morning, they left, making their long journey back home. SOMETHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS GREATER AND DEEPER THAN HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. IN GOD WE TRUST

    • Sitting on ther sidelines, just observing life here and abroad, it seems that nothing is really different apart from the fact that America used to be the most powerful and richest nation. It took 222 years for America to spend its first $4,000,000,000,000 and only four years to spend the second lot, now it would be easy to say it is because he is black but far from it as is evidenced by Allen West and that paediatric brain surgeon who got up Obama’s nose at that breakfast session, so race and colour have nothing to do with it. I can only conclude that (1) He was born totally devoid of compassion and his father could account for that secondly, his mother could not stay out of strange mens beds. So number one, an ignorant father, second a fanatical stepfather and Indonesia at that who hates the west and Australians in particular despite the mega millions of aid that we give them and according to google, last year it was $541,000,000 so in this climate of Islamic hatred Barry Soetoro went to an islamic sclool and not to study Christianity. So Islam has a hold of him and Muslims want to cut off your head with a blunt knife, so I hope that you have a pistol handy in case they come knocking, your years with the police should come in handy there.

  40. Anyone seen the movie IN TIME
    (Justin Timberlake)?
    You’re allotted TIME, not money. You have to do everything fast(like eating a meal), because it’s costing you time. Everything is payable w/ time. Food, clothing, etc. They can raise the ‘cost’ of something so you can never get ahead. There are ‘Zones’ that are blocked off & guarded, to keep the ‘classes’ apart. Only allowed into an upper class zone to do menial jobs, then right back home. If you aren’t careful, you run out of time and die. Right there in the street, or where ever you happen to be.
    You stop aging @ a specific age(don’t remember exactly). So the UPPER classes guard their ‘time’ like gold.
    I didn’t give that movie much thought till recently. Now, w/ each passing day, a life similar to that, could be our reality.
    Well, there’s so much more to it. If you haven’t seen the movie, you should.
    Very thought provoking.

    • You’d think that since Hollywood makes movies about Communism that they would be able to recognize it in real life and see obama for the Communist that he is. Unless they really are just too afraid to speak up about it.

  41. When the Obamas give back to me the money they spent on their luxury vacations on my dime….only then can he discuss income equality…whatever that is supposed to mean…..sounds like ‘share the wealth communism’ to me!

    • It’s also not unreasonable to ask if the Obamas can fit an extra 200-300 low and middle income Americans on Air Force One the next time they take a jaunt to Hawaii or Martha’s Vineyard.

      • It’s called a vacation. Presidents do it all the time. And there’s no limitation on where they can go. Also, according to the Sec service, they prefer the presidents go to Martha’s Vineyard. It’s an island and if need, they can get the pres out.

  42. What DOEs Obama’s latest CATCH PHRASE ‘income equality’ really mean?
    Do we all get Obama’s salary?
    Do fast food workers get Senator’s pay?
    Do high school drop outs get police and firefighters pay?
    Do we all get minimum wage if we work or not?
    Or do we all get a ‘welfare check and food stamps’ plus our salary?

    Sounds to me like an incentive to destroy the rest of those businesses that Obama said,
    “You didn’t build”!

    • No, it means that people should stop having a sociopathic attitude and espousing social Darwinism. It means taking steps to give the poorest among us a leg up so they can at least survive on hard work rather than relying upon the government. Things like raising the minimum wage, closing tax loopholes for the rich and for corporations. Encouraging the ultra wealthy to actually create jobs instead of sitting on piles of money or to do philanthropic work.

      Rectifying income inequality is not redistribution of wealth and it isn’t Communism. Oh, and no, nobody did build anything on their own. They used the public infrastructure provided by tax dollars to be successful. Anyone who ever had a successful business did, from government grants and loans, to public highways to deliver product, to the internet that was developed with public funds.

      • I’ll answer your trite liberal reply as succinctly as possible.

        Koolaid induced comment right out of the liberal play book.

      • Par for the course for a sociopathic conservative.

        I just made an articulate, intelligent explanation of my position, and you reply with useless ad hominem argument that completely fails to address or rebut any of it.

        Cognitive dissonance – straight out of the ignorance play book.

      • Are you stalking me because you stated an untruth and I corrected your error?
        I ask simply because…. you must surely know that your uneducated comment added nothing of value to any discussion!

  43. That’s by far the dumbest column ever writen by Col. West. Instead of making a case for a conservative economic policy he gets into infantile suggestions that he can’t dunk like Lebron James. How about articulating your vision (if you have one) instead of twisting and speculating on Obama’s policies. I don’t think the Col. took 5 minutes to even research what kind of impact something like raising minimum wage would have on the American economy. Conservatives always intellectually lazy.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here