» News

The Dumbest Bastard On The Web

Home - by - April 15, 2011 - 14:03 America/New_York - 28 Comments

Matty is at it again. Going through life fat and stupid.

Matthew Yglesisassassass wrote some commentary about NY Times columnist David Brooks’ commentary where Brooks says that Paul Ryan and Obama have never had a face to face meeting of any importance. Brooks suggests a lunch summit.

Uglyass mocks the mockery by asserting that it wouldn’t matter because Ryan is a Ayn Rand disciple whose entire agenda is to keep more money in the pockets of the rich because… well, just because.

Fatty has most likely not watched this Bill Whittle video that explains that EVERY PENNY can be confiscated from “the rich” (all the way down to people making 250k a year) and it wouldn’t pay for the progressive utopia that Fatty longs for. Ryan understands this, Obama and Uglyass does not.

One other thing Fatty doesn’t understand. This is the picture that Fatso puts on his blog to represent “a lunch summit.”

Potato chips and bacon? What fudge-based bubble has this moron been cocooned in for the last couple of years? This fat bastard is obviously “voting against his own interests” when he votes for central planning progressives who are currently waging a war on freedom of food choice, food choices that Fatty obviously makes when he straps on his feedbag.

» 28 Comments

  1. Matt Damon's Brain

    April 15th, 2011

    You got me all “tingly” as I thought you were talking about ME!!!!!

    Thumb up +6

     
  2. sammy

    April 15th, 2011

    tasty looking sammich!

    Thumb up +2

     
  3. Racist for Cain

    April 15th, 2011

    Well ya know the onerous regulations or the fatwas won’t apply to the lefties themselves once either the Commies or the Islammies have defeated the evil Capitalists!

    Thumb up -1

     
  4. Diogenes Sarcastica

    April 15th, 2011

    I think the air is beginning to get thin down there in his mother’s basement.

    Thumb up +4

     
  5. Czar of Defenestration

    April 15th, 2011

    It’s one thing to claim that someone’s agenda is to “keep more money in the pockets of the rich.

    Buuuut:…just what do you feed a Josef Stalin disciple, anyhoos?

    Someone whose agenda is taking everything from the pockets of the rich…gosh, I guess the Republicans never thought of handing Obama’s ass to him that way.

    Thumb up -2

     
  6. jwm

    April 15th, 2011

    What strikes me here- stigmatizing the consumption of “unhealthy food” as an evil right wing behavior. Just like cigarettes. The enlightened leftist does not eat politically incorrect food.

    JWM

    Thumb up 0

     
  7. Jschmitt

    April 15th, 2011

    That sammich looks fantastic! First the bacon perfume, now this. Dangit, that does it. Bacon for brekkie tomorrow….bacon for lunch too!!!

    Thumb up +3

     
  8. Tim

    April 15th, 2011

    It’s about power; it’s not about providing services to the worthless.

    Matty Iy’Glassy-ass is just a useful idiot who can be thrown into the oven later.

    The history is clear, the story is told – for those who have eyes to see.

    Thumb up -2

     
  9. Bill the Hater

    April 15th, 2011

    I met Matt last weekend and I can report that he is taller than I thought he would be and not fat. So your ad-hominem attacks are even more worthless than usual.

    Ya. ALLL I did was an ad-hominem attack. Nothing else. Sigh.
    Here’s the NOT FAT Uglyass – he’s not the fat ginger -


    Matt, I’m so fat I sweat when I sit, Uglyass.

    So, we can assume Bill the Hater is a short, really fat guy who has a thing for Mattso.

    Thumb up +2

     
  10. gregorsam

    April 15th, 2011

    Hahaha!

    You guys are hilarious.

    Where did you learn your political philosophy?

    The Lumber Store Community College of Oshkosh or Valhalla?

    Thumb up +7

     
  11. cfm990

    April 15th, 2011

    Thumb up +1

     
  12. Matt Damon's Brain

    April 15th, 2011

    @Bill Hater-
    What if YOU are morbidly obese and when looking at FattY he only appears small…relative to your behemothness. So if I was you, I’d drop what you’re undoubtedly eating right now…back away from the keyboard, brush the crumbs off your lap…and realize the only way to loose your man boobs is to become a woman!
    Peace Out Bro!

    Thumb up +2

     
  13. Bill

    April 15th, 2011

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up -4

     
  14. brendan

    April 15th, 2011

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up -3

     
  15. Muckford

    April 15th, 2011

    @brendan and @bill – you two buddies?

    You’re both idiots. Income inequality is only bad when there is no opportunity for the low income earners to increase their income. Meaning they are held in check by government. That is not (or at least was not) the case here in the good ol’ US of A.

    Plenty of self-made million and billionaires here. Not so in dictatorships.

    Thumb up +1

     
  16. Flyover Pilgrim

    April 15th, 2011

    ah, mmmm, bacon…[sigh] It is Lent, you know.

    Matt WHO??

    Thumb up 0

     
  17. BigFurHat

    April 15th, 2011

    Ummm, Brendan. Maybe communication and thought isn’t your strong suit. Maybe it’s something more plant based, like phototropism.

    The fact that wealth inequality led to riots in Libya and Egypt doesn’t speak AT ALL to my assertion to Bill that wealth inequality in the U.S. is NOTHING like that of Libya and Egypt.
    But just keep flapping your lips, odds are something of merit or something germane will flutter out.

    Thumb up +1

     
  18. United States Senator Harold W. Cummins

    April 16th, 2011

    Yeah, but you can’t make an omlette without breaking eggs. I don’t know what that means, but it seems like the kind of thing that a smart person would say.

    I’m a United States Senator, by the way. Bet you don’t get many senators here, do you? Well, you’d better get used to it, because you’ve just been anointed the Hot New Pundit.

    Thumb up 0

     
  19. Bill

    April 16th, 2011

    “Income inequality is only bad when there is no opportunity for the low income earners to increase their income. Meaning they are held in check by government. That is not (or at least was not) the case here in the good ol’ US of A.”

    Hahahaha good one.

    Thumb up 0

     
  20. bob

    April 16th, 2011

    bacon makes everything more awesomer!

    Thumb up 0

     
  21. Bill

    April 16th, 2011

    “The fact that wealth inequality led to riots in Libya and Egypt doesn’t speak AT ALL to my assertion to Bill that wealth inequality in the U.S. is NOTHING like that of Libya and Egypt.”

    Read what I wrote. I said it’s “where we’re currently headed” and that it “leads to” situations like Libya and Egypt.

    Either way, a stagnant middle class and immobile lower class ought to disturb you, but it seemingly doesn’t. Maybe you’re already rich, or maybe you like the fact that middle class wages have been flat for 2 decades now while the top 1% rake in all the dough.

    Umm, Bill. It was equally stupid the second time you wrote it. We are not heading towards the economic inequalities of Libya or Egypt, unless of course we adopt the economic philosophy you advocate – ruling class/proletariat.
    What closely resembled the riots of Egypt and Libya, but primarily Greece, in America these past few months has been the asinine display in Wisconsin, where dirtbags, such as yourself, protested because a voting bloc was busted up. A voting bloc that continually grabs for more and more and more while the public sector is bankrupt.
    You can take EVERY penny from every person making more than 250K a year and it will not cover America’s budget for ONE YEAR. Did you read that? EVERY PENNY FROM EVERY PERSON IN AMERICA MAKING OVER 250K WOULD NOT COVER AMERICA’S ONE YEAR BUDGET.
    So, take your collectivist ass out of here and do some math, mmkay? The top one percent cannot pay for all your statism, dopey. Go back to your etch a sketch and come up with a better idea than class warfare, you friggin idiot.
    You will always see this problem as a failure to collect revenue problem, rather than a cut spending solution. It’s not your fault. It’s called stupidity. My words are tough love, my enemy.
    And yes, I do not want central planners controlling the means of production so that we have one class. You know why? Cuz the central planners will be the top elite, like in every other centrally planned Utopia, the only difference being this top elite will not be Coca-Cola, it’ll be the government. And they will be holding guns, pointed at you… legally.
    You’re an idiot on multiple levels. You cannot see what is happening all around you while you bite the pillow worrying about that 1 out of 100 guy, and dreaming about how you can bring him down. Unless all the Bosco is absolutely equally distributed on the ice cream at the entire children’s table, jerks like you will ALWAYS see inequality. Bringing the top down just a little, and raising the bottom just a little is NOT gonna satiate the collectivism dream that has been indoctrinated into you by some smelly ass, pony-tailed professor. The classes have been contracting and expanding for a hundred years and leftists sang the same tune in good times and bad times. Matters little. The end game is collectivist statism. And it’s not gonna happen on my watch, despite how backwater you consider my opinions to be.
    -bfh

    Thumb up +1

     
  22. bobonobo

    April 16th, 2011

    That looks like a delicious Applebee’s sandwich.

    Thumb up +1

     
  23. fearandloathing

    April 16th, 2011

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up -3

     
  24. BigFurHat

    April 17th, 2011

    Apparently many commenters on >fill in any lefty blog here< are not able to distinguish between neocons, libertarians, and conservatives. I’m worried that going into a voting booth unable to dinstinguish Allen West from John Birch could lead possibly to some very extreme electoral outcomes. Instead the only practical effect is that most leftists hate anyone to the right of Stalin, so therefore America is doomed to repeat the 100% failure rate of collectivism.

    Thumb up +2

     
  25. YarYar

    April 18th, 2011

    Man, one would imagine people could be arsed to spend five seconds doing research before making arbitrary claims like these. For one, the US has a *higher* income inequality than Egypt. Check out the Gini Coefficient listings (Gini coefficient is the most accepted measure of income inequality) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

    Egypt ranks in at a .35, while the US ranks in at .4 according to the UN, and .45 according to the CIA. Of course you can argue that these figures aren’t good, that Egypt’s figures don’t cover all income – but I can argue the same for the US, AND maybe the figures aren’t perfect, but to say that the US isn’t *close* to Egypt on income inequality has absolute no evidence going for it. Data issues could make them equal, possibly – but you have no reason to believe that, and to believe that data issues are SO bad as to make Egypt MUCH worse! So the US is already likely far past Egypt in that regard. On Lybia, we really dont have the proper info – they are pegged lower than the US though as well, by the CIA.

    Second, the top households of the US could almost cover the *entire* US *budget* http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/04/cbo-top-1-earned-19-of-income.html The income of the top 1% was 19% of all income (in 2006), while total government spending in the US is around 22% for 2009 (the figures haven’t changed radically by any estimates). Btw, households making above $250,000 account for 1.5% of all households, so some werent even included here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

    But thats a dumb, dumb analysis to make. The US does pay for alot of its budget, and few people are seriously proposing eliminating every tax on anyone below that number without spending cuts (normally to the military, but whatever). What matters is the current deficit – $1.4-1.5 trillion, more or less. The new income of this top 1% was 20% of a GDP of $14-15 trillion. That puts them at an income of around $3 trillion. While they do pay 30% of taxes on that current income, that’s already taken into account, so they can certainly cover the deficit by paying around 70%.

    Is that a good idea? Maybe, maybe not. I’m making no claim on that. Maybe it would “suppress growth” or whatever, though the US had higher rates than that until 1980, and many high income countries have such rates. But to make the claim that they *cant* pay the deficit, right now, is just factually incorrect, and to misconstrue it as asking them to pay the entire budget is a straw man, but even then is almost possible, and in fact would be possible if the US recovers to pre-recession levels of government expenditure (lower unemployment means less government expenditure and higher general revenue). Its not worth researching the numbers on that hypothetical though

    Thumb up +1

     
  26. mkultra

    April 18th, 2011

    @YarYar, Is ‘Income Inequality’ the left’s unified field theory of all the world’s problems? at least one economist thinks you’re completely full of shit.

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell020700.asp

    Thumb up +1

     
  27. BigFurHat

    April 18th, 2011

    Hey yar yar.

    Why don’t ya watch this -

    http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=71492

    Thumb up 0

     
  28. Muckford

    April 18th, 2011

    @yar yar – maybe you should do a little more research. Try this on for size.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/100-percent-tax-those-earning-500k-or-mo

    In 2009 taxing 100% of income over $500K would have left the US goobermint $800+ billion short of the annual deficit.

    Statistics from the IRS …

    Thumb up 0