Fellow Bad Commies! It is time for another exciting blog entry! What wonderful news of communism shall I find on the internet today?! Uhhhh, wait ..... I meant, what savage atrocious commie behavior shall I be forced to expose!

Hokay, first, this observation from the slashdot technological netherworld, [courtesy of Osama bin Texan - name in evil commie red, as usual]:

Vote Democratic, The Economy Improves Consistently

Employment (especially at smaller companies) tends to go up under Democratic administrations, as does the stock market. This trend is consistent and has been proven but the media seems to avoid this important story, instead promoting a popular myth that Republicans are better for the economy than Democrats.
This myth is wrong. Democratic administrations have performed better economically since the beginning of the 20th century, often markedly so.

Possible reasons are many, perhaps increased confidence in the future under Democratic administrations for the common people, vs. increased fear while the Republicans are in power. Also, to promote growth, Democrats prefer to tax higher income people, which decreases the gap between rich and poor, while Republicans prefer to have the government go into debt, increasing the cost of capital and interest rates and making banking more profitable, but also increasing the gap between rich and poor.

Which do you prefer?

Hmmm. Commies rule the known universe or lots of money in Bad Commie pocket? Tough one. NOT!!!! STAB STAB STAB. [Also, must stab self for excessive intellectualism].

So, will Bad Commie choose capitalism, no matter how poor it makes him?
[Bad Commie stabs self - preventive maintenance stabbing before hypothetical thought experiment, in case the conclusion turns out to be pro commie].

So, is communism and mass murder good for the economy? Probably, Yes. Certainly to some degree. Bad Commie is definitely pro crime, anyway, as I've explained on numerous occasions.
I wonder what degree of looting and stealing, and by whom, would maximize the economy? Of-course, we would have to observe long and short term economical benefit for different types of population groups.
Hmmm. I'll probably need some sort of statistical model where I can vary the size of government, the degree of state and personal looting, the degree of personal capitalism and of personal communism, the degree of commie stabbing [actually, I don't think I will vary that - that setting will be set on "Extra Stab"] ? Hmmm. In any case, its obviously quite reasonable to assume that increasing communism can increase the economy for ALL groups. To see this - assume that the US had never engaged in any communism, but that we would do so on one occasion. Lets assume that that occasion was the killing and eating of Bill Gates, and the distribution of all his money. Well, Bill Gates would be shit out of luck, but everyone else would benefit. So, we are forced to conclude that communism can have a very positive effect on all groups. And we didn't even have to assume that humans were moral or good or anything, in order to prove that communism is good. Not only didn't we have to assume human being were good and moral but, quite the opposite! We got to cook and eat Bill Gates!

Hokay, thought experiment over. I'll have to stab myself to insure that I didn't learn anything.

So, I guess I'll have to be poor if I want to stab commies. Oh well, as long as I have my knife and my other knife, I am happy. Back to the internet, in all its glory.

Does the fact that, during the elections, republican states are called "red states" mean that Republicans and W are a Red Commie Menace? Crap, Shit, I'm stabbing the wrong side again. Fuck. Ok, Ok, in order to get back into the stabbing groove, let's get back to the simple basics. Lets prove John Kerry is a dirty smelly hippy commie. Jonathan David Morris says:

"Iowa's a rural state," caucusgoers were expected to say. "Rural states have farms, and farms have agriculture, and John Kerry... well, John Kerry doesn't even like agriculture. Wait a minute. I live in Iowa. John Kerry doesn't like me!"

Yes, by having so much as suggested smaller government, Kerry was painted to be an uncaring, insensitive man. I suppose, by this standard, George Bush will be called the same thing unless he moves forward with his occupation of Mars. He wouldn't want to slight Martian-Americans, after all. Not in an election year.

I can't be the only one who's offended by the fact that small government's supposed to offend voters, can I?

Maybe I can. Kerry's own campaign, after all, was quick to reply to the '96 remarks that he "takes a back seat to no one" -- in the words of spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter -- when it comes to "protecting America's farmers." This time, the keyword is "protecting." The people need protection, we're told, and candidates will do anything -- from riding a bike on late night TV to dropping f-bombs in the pages of pop culture rags -- to prove they can be trusted with the job.

John Kerry says on his Web site that he's "prepared to fight with all my energy" on our behalf. Howard Dean writes on his that he has "a proven track record of... fighting the good fight." Wesley Clark, likewise, has an "ability to fight for his people." And as for Joe Lieberman, "he's continued to lead... and to fight for what's right for America" "in the Senate over the last 14 years" -- this after "fight[ing] for African-Americans' right to vote," and "fighting for the people of his state as Attorney General." I don't know about you, but that sure seems to me like a whole lot of fighting.

That's the name of the game, though. "I'm going to fight for you," they say. Well, here's a crazy idea: Don't. Let us fight for ourselves. It costs us money when you do it.

Ah, but who am I fooling? John Kerry's win proves he's a fighter. It's a shame, really. He might've had my vote.


OK, good. John Kerry is a Commie. Stab, Stab, Stab. I think I'm getting the hang of it again. Now, let's prove that the french are commies:


[France is] America minus the Declaration of Independance, minus the Constitution, minus the conquest of the West, minus the Oval office, minus the Pentagon, minus Hollywood, minus World War II, minus Vietnam, minus the Cybercoast which now stretches well beyond the Silicon Valley of its beginnings, minus Apollo and minus the Gulf War.

...
In France, someone convicted of embezzlement or bribery is not ostracised by his compatriots. Following the disclosures about Socialist party financing, the treasurer, Henri Emmanuelli, was sent to prison. That in no way hindered him from being re-elected to parliament when he was released. Indeed, since bribery is considered essential for lubricating a deal, corruption-busting magistrates can find themselves accused of harming French business interests.
...
Corruption exists in all countries, rich and poor. Does it have distinctive roots in France? According to the writer Edmonde Charles Roux, "the Mediterranean people have a conception of honesty which is peculiar to them." In the case of France there are two aspects of all this which seem to be fundamentally different from life in Britain.

The first is the attitude to money. The British have a fairly clear view (which has been called Protestant) that money is a tool. There is nothing wrong with it in itself, but there is good money, earned by hard work, and bad money gained through greed or dishonesty. At the root of the French attitude is the Catholic view that money is tainted by sin. Yet money is necessary and since corruption is only an abuse of something already sinful, it doesn't matter too much.

That historical, Catholic view, is overlaid by the Republican rejection of all things Catholic (partly because the Catholic church itself was seen as corrupt). According to Republican logic, the term "morality" smacks of the church, so calling a politician immoral is off limits because it mixes state with church, which is forbidden by law. Republicanism has also led to a conviction that the state will foot the bill - for anything. The result in France is a confused way of thinking about money, marked by suspicion and reticence when talking about it.

The second basic difference concerns the French attitude towards politicians. In France, politics is about strength and l'art de paratre. The French don't condemn their leaders' immoral actions if they are for the common good. At one of his trials former minister Bernard Tapie admitted he had committed perjury. "But I lied in good faith," he added. "Better the dishonest minister than the stupid one," says barrister Jean-Pierre Versini-Campinchi, who is defending Francois Mitterrand's son in an arms trafficking case. The French do not share the notion that a politician should, personally, set a good example.


OK, good again. french == commies. Check. I'm really good at this proving stuff. Now, let's prove that W is a commie. Molly Ivins says:


Jim Hightower's great line about Bush, "Born on third and thinks he hit a triple," is still painfully true. Bush has simply never acknowledged that not only was he born with a silver spoon in his mouth -- he's been eating off it ever since. The reason there is no noblesse oblige about Dubya is because he doesn't admit to himself or anyone else that he owes his entire life to being named George W. Bush. He didn't just get a head start by being his father's son -- it remained the single most salient fact about him for most of his life. He got into Andover as a legacy. He got into Yale as a legacy. He got into Harvard Business School as a courtesy (he was turned down by the University of Texas Law School). He got into the Texas Air National Guard -- and sat out Vietnam -- through Daddy's influence. (I would like to point out that that particular unit of FANGers, as regular Air Force referred to the "Fucking Air National Guard," included not only the sons of Governor John Connally and Senator Lloyd Bentsen, but some actual black members as well -- they just happened to play football for the Dallas Cowboys.) Bush was set up in the oil business by friends of his father. He went broke and was bailed out by friends of his father. He went broke again and was bailed out again by friends of his father; he went broke yet again and was bailed out by some fellow Yalies.


Hmm, OK, that was Molly Ivins. I heard she was a democrat. We have no bidness listening to democrats. Let's listen to the excellent, certified anti-intellectual Kyle Williams:


Here we are on the outset of 2004, and the hope that President Bush would wrap up his first term with a conservative agenda is rapidly fading. From the beginning of his administration with the No Child Left Behind Act, the Patriot Act, and later with the Homeland Security bureaucracy and the farm bill, President Bush has abandoned his conservative base.
...
It seems to be common sense that you don't trade the constituency that got you elected for blood-sucking leaches in Washington. Instead of rewarding conservatives with a sensible education policy, our president rewards Ted Kennedy, a man who vehemently hates the GOP.
...
"The Republican Congress is spending at twice the rate as under Bill Clinton, and President Bush has yet to issue a single veto," Paul M. Weyrich, national chairman of Coalitions for America, was quoted in the Washington Times report. "I complained about profligate spending during the Clinton years but never thought I'd have to do so with a Republican in the White House and Republicans controlling the Congress."
...
The campaign slogan for Bush and Cheney 2004 should be: "Throwing your liberty away slower than everybody else!" That's the idea, right? Every criticism of President Bush early in his term was responded with, "Would you rather Al Gore be in office?" No, I don't want Al Gore in office.

Now, any criticism is responded with, "Would you rather Howard Dean be in office?" No, I sure wouldn't want Howard Dean or the ridiculous John Kerry in office.

Because of the GOP reneging on conservative principles, the inability for a third-party candidate to win and a Bush campaign based upon mediocrity, cynicism is going to be on the mind of many this next election cycle. And, while the administration stares into the sky, hoping to spend billions on sending men to Mars, many conservatives will be wondering why they should bother showing up this coming November.


OK, good. W == commie. Check. W is also very entertaining. He says:


"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet." --Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000

Hmm, I wonder if Bad Commie Blog is a dark dungeon?

Wait, Fuck! No! Stabbing the wrong side again! Crap! Mother fucker! I really really suck. I must be eating too many fries. I'd better stop for today.

Remember, if you buy my Bad Commie tshirt and wear it in public, it doubles your chance of going to prison, or your money is all mine!



Also, thank you for these two blogs for blogrolling me:
http://commonsensewonder.com/
http://www.gravett.org/pc/
I certify that they are Bad Commies!


P.S. Osama bin Texan asked me:

Does the rich, happy kulak spend a lot of time reading ? No, he goes around checking on his cows and pigs and selling things. The village commie, on the other hand, sits in the cafe reading foreign newspapers and muttering and getting angry and unhappy. If he would just go check to see how big his pigs had grown, to see that God loved him and was making him rich, he wouldn't care.

Hmm, Maybe Bad Commie is internet kulak? No? I didn't think so either.

-posted by Bad Commie @ 8:49 PM