This is making the rounds in emails and has been posted several places. I do not know who is the original author.
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama, I need the money.” I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a “Obama 08″ tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference — just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
I would argue that while the homeless guy may have needed the money more, he didn't deserve it more.
When you give to someone in need, that is charity and has nothing to do with fairness. When someone receives what he has earned, that's fairness.
If you disagree, please see this post to make a donation and spread your wealth around.
But it's all good, right?
For extra fun, try to count the number of times that Biden blinks during the interview. This source seems to think that a high blink rate is a sign of lying. Could be that he was just bothered by the interviewer shining a bright light into areas the campaign wants to keep in the dark.
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." - Barack Obama
Cut out the government middleman and spread your wealth directly to me.
When McCain mentioned the t-shirts, the only two reasons that I can think of that Obama would not make a statement that he is disgusted by them is that:
1. He is a coward. He is afraid of alienating the rotted out remnants of human beings that wear this garbage.
2. On some level, he agrees with them. A woman has no greater significance than her genitals.
I had really thought that the best response would have been for Michelle Obama to make a statement of disgust over the shirts and the behaviour of the wearers. Who would wear something like that? Especially when they had to know it was likely she would have had one of her children with her.
Picture below the fold.
Photo from Wake Up America
At the end of an post about how some people (Sarah Palin) aren't that smart is this paragraph:
We in the "liberal media" are always accused of condescending to the conservatives and smearing them for being all of one mind, I'm actually glad to see that some of them have not drank the Kool-Aid and are thinking out of the box and, dare we say it, acting on principle instead of politics.
The past participle of drink is have drunk.
It's a common mistake but it's still wrong and it makes the previous sentence about, "knowing your shortcomings and limitations, and being able to admit what you don't know, and what you're not qualified to do" kind of funny.
Obama: "We have to anticipate* these problems. Ahead of time."
That made me LOL. Out loud.
Last night I was flipping through the TV channels and there was some entertainment/news show on. It was showing Katie Couric standing in a hallway talking to Sarah Palin. KC was asking what newspapers the governor reads.
I know Couricasaurus is getting old, but seriously, does that question belong in this century? While there are some reasons to subscribe to dead-tree papers, don't most people get news online? Links from blogs and Google news (and other aggregators) and alerts of topics of interest let me follow stories rather than just whatever one or two papers thinks is worth letting me know about.