I see by the complete lack of comments that nobody has actually made it to the end of my last post. So, here is something a little shorter.
I know I mentioned this briefly in my last post, but it merits a little more discussion. I have just listened again to the audio of Obama talking about his plans for the coal industry. The real kicker here is not just his ideas on how to bankrupt coal electric plants. Obama actually says that under his administration, the cost of electricity will "necessarily skyrocket." Do not believe whatever spin the Obama campaign tries to put on this. You can listen to BO in his own words. He actually wants to cause the cost of energy to skyrocket. Why? Because he agrees with the environmentalist theory that energy prices must be artificially elevated in order to reduce demand to "save the planet." Think about it for a minute. Obama wants to raise your energy prices. A lot. But that won't just affect your own electric bill. It will affect your employer's bill. It will affect the bills paid by all the companies that produce the goods that you buy. On top of all the new taxes businesses are going to be paying, their overhead will increase due to the skyrocketing energy prices. Not only will that cost additional jobs, it will throw one more setback at American companies trying to compete internationally. What a great idea!
We've heard this argument with gas prices. For some time the left was complaining that we need higher gas prices, $3-$4 per gallon like Europe, so that people will stop using so much oil and eventually reduce carbon emissions. Funny, since we've had those gas prices, you haven't noticed the dems out celebrating in the streets, have you? The democrats have screamed just as loud as anyone about it. Why? Because everyone is angry that they are paying so much at the pump! Plus, they think they can just blame it on Bush. Think about the effect higher gas prices have had on the economy. The cost to produce and ship goods has increased dramatically. I guarantee you that jobs have been lost because companies can't afford to do business with those prices, particularly trucking companies. Either that, or the cost has simply been passed on to you. This is, after all, like Obama's promise of increased taxes on corporations. Guess what? Corporations don't pay taxes, they simply collect them from you and pass them on. More taxes on corporations equals higher prices for you. When the prices get so high that you decide you don't want to buy anymore, the company may cut prices, but it can only cut so much before it goes under.
I'm sure that when the cost of electricity skyrockets you won't see the dems stand up at a press conference to say "you're welcome, America! We finally got the job done!" I'm guessing they'll find a way to blame someone else, as usual.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
No Representation Without Taxation!
I have a feeling this is going to be long, and I don't have a lot of time. So I am just going to type, spell-check, and let it rip. I apologize in advance for any errors.
The election is upon us. We live in, without a doubt, the greatest nation on the earth. I have become, however, very troubled by the trend I am witnessing both prior to and during this most recent campaign. I have often reflected on the following quote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
The author of this quote, to my knowledge is unknown. It is often attributed to Alexander Tytler, a Scottish lawyer and writer. Frankly, I don't care who wrote it. I'm not sure I can agree precisely with the process described, but I can say that I agree with the general principle. I ask you, at what stage in this process do we find our beloved nation? The words complement a thought that I have often had, and that I may have expressed to more than one of you on occasion. Many years ago, the founders of this nation rose up against the concept that they could be taxed arbitrarily without having for themselves a voice in the government. I submit that the pendulum has nearly swung to the opposite end of its path, an equally dangerous proposition --that of representation without taxation.
What do I mean? I mean that as soon as we reach a critical mass of voters in this country who carry little or no liability to pay for the function of government, yet who realize their collective power to lay claim to its seemingly infinite benefits, we will once again have tyranny.
This reminds me of another quote. Winston Churchill once said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter." I don't blame the voter completely in this age. I blame partly a ridiculous system in which candidates have been campaigning for over 2 years, and all we've heard from them are soundbites. I blame a media who has abandoned all pretense of objectivity, and simply signed on as the media wing of the Obama campaign. But the voter is not blameless. In today's culture of celebrity worship, too many prefer to spend their time reading Hollywood gossip magazines and watching the endless drivel broadcast on MTV or E, as if an update on who is in rehab now is far more important than getting to really know the person who will become our next President. Sadly, it is also these voters who likely embrace the political speeches made by their favorite actors about the important political issues of our day, as if that in some perverse way satisfies their civic duty.
America appears ready to elect a man it does not know as President. For those of you reading this blog who will cast your vote for John McCain, I thank you. Even if, like me, there are many others for whom you would prefer to cast your vote besides McCain, we must play the hand we have been dealt. A lack of the best choice must not preclude us from making the better choice.
To those of you who may be reading this blog who intend to cast your vote for Barack Obama, I ask you to consider the following.
Do you know him? Can you trust him? Is his ideology consistent with the Constitution? Does his view of America truly align with your own? In my opinion, Obama is a dishonest and deceitful man. He has consistently changed his positions based on his audience. And I don't just mean the subtle wordsmithing that (unfortunately) accompanies every political campaign. I mean blatantly conflicting statements. In short, I believe the man shamelessly lies in order to sway the hearts of voters.
As an example, over the last week Obama has slowly been changing one of his most prominent lines. Did you believe Obama when he said that only those making above $250,000 a year would see their taxes go up? What about his plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire? Doesn't that automatically increase everyone's taxes? Indeed it does. But somehow Obama has gotten away with the lie. Even worse, now Obama's commercials set the threshold at $200,000. Joe Biden sets it at $150,000. Some day in the near future, a great many Americans are going to wake up and suddenly realize that they are officially "rich." Oh, they won't feel rich. They'll wonder how they became so rich while they are still just getting by on their income. But they will feel the consequences in the form of paying more of their "fair share."
Speaking of fair share, do you really feel comfortable electing a man who bases his tax policies on his own idea of what he believes is fair for the wealthy to pay? Shouldn't the government be concerned only with collecting adequate revenue to carry out its legitimate functions? Yet when Obama was asked why he would want to raise taxes, when the historical data shows an increase in federal revenue when taxes are lowered, Obama rested on fairness. Sure, revenue may be greater if we cut taxes on the rich, but that just isn't fair. The average voter may be shocked to know just how fair the rich's share is. The top 1% of taxpayers collect approximately 19% of income, but carry 39% of the tax burden. Is that fair? The top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of the taxes.
Do you feel comfortable electing a man who wants to punish businesses and the "rich" with higher taxes during a devastating financial crisis? If so, please explain to me how that will help. What we need is successful businesses and more jobs. Obama says he will create jobs. The problem is that Obama doesn't know how to create a job. It is businesses that create jobs, and when businesses are taxed more they spend less creating jobs. Thus, McCain's yet unanswered question to Obama during the final debate, why would you want to raise anyone's taxes in this economy? Obama argues that it is the middle-class and the poor who need these "tax cuts." I will leave aside for now the lie that is the Obama "tax cut" for the poor. As a man named Neal Boortz often says, when was the last time you got a job from a poor person? You don't. Do you want the government to pinch your employer more so that your employer has to figure out how to cut costs to protect his business? Those cost cuts will eventually cost someone his or her job -- maybe mine, maybe yours. Obama wants more money to carry out his spending programs, because he thinks he has the solutions, through government, for our problems. But government handouts don't create jobs. When has the government been effective at solving problems best handled by competition and the free market?
Do you feel comfortable electing a man with so many questionable ties, and so many radical ideologies? I will not go into each association that I find troubling, but here is a quick list:
- William Ayers
- Bernedine Dorn
- Reverand J. Wright
- Father M. Pfleger
- Khalid al-Monsour
- Tony Rezko
- ACORN
These are Obama's friends. If you don't know who they are, and you plan to vote, you better find out before tomorrow. Obama has been able to get by saying that these people aren't advisers, and aren't part of his campaign. I don't care if they aren't your advisers! If John McCain was friends with the grand-master of the KKK, do you think it would matter to people that he didn't list them as advisers?
Perhaps most importantly, Obama's ideology is, to be blunt, un-American. Obama lamented, on tape in 2001, that during the civil rights movement the Supreme Court did not act create redistributive change. Meaning, he wished the Supreme Court had used its power to put in place the type of wealth redistribution that Obama wants to enact legislatively. I want you to, for just a moment, imagine what the reaction would have been of the founding fathers had they been presented with the concept of taking money from Joe in order to pass it on to John in the form of a "tax cut," or "refundable tax credit." That is not freedom. That is not liberty. It is tyranny. In basic terms, it is called theft. America may be at a point where it doesn't like to hear this, but you simply do not have the right to someone else's property. You do not have the right to the fruits of someone else's labor. The constitution was meant to protect your right to your property. Why do you believe it is any politician's right to take it just to give it to you?
Are you comfortable electing a man who has stated that he will put policies in place that will essentially bankrupt the coal industry? Obama wants to make the cost of doing business, in the form of taxes on carbon emissions, so onerous that a very large industry in America will suffer greatly and perhaps collapse. Keep in mind that 49% of our electricity comes from coal. Keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of people are employed by or otherwise have a job because of the coal industry. Does Obama factor in those lost jobs when he talks about the ones he is going to "create"? When discussing the great benefit of his "tax cuts" for the middle class did Obama factor in the huge increase in cost we will see for our electricity when he puts a stranglehold on the coal industry and opposes any more nuclear power? I think not.
Lastly, I want you to ask yourself one simple question as you examine the qualifications of the Presidential candidates. What has Obama ever accomplished? What has the man ever done that makes you think he is qualified for the highest office in this country? Perhaps when you are done criticizing Sarah Palin -- a successful governor -- for her lack of experience, you can turn your intellectual focus on Obama. Are you really willing to roll the dice on a candidate whose experience and abilities we know next to nothing about? When the now infamous "3am phone call" comes, the President of the United States doesn't have the luxury of "voting present." I value this country and my liberty far too much to cast a vote for the type of change Barack Obama promises.
The election is upon us. We live in, without a doubt, the greatest nation on the earth. I have become, however, very troubled by the trend I am witnessing both prior to and during this most recent campaign. I have often reflected on the following quote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
The author of this quote, to my knowledge is unknown. It is often attributed to Alexander Tytler, a Scottish lawyer and writer. Frankly, I don't care who wrote it. I'm not sure I can agree precisely with the process described, but I can say that I agree with the general principle. I ask you, at what stage in this process do we find our beloved nation? The words complement a thought that I have often had, and that I may have expressed to more than one of you on occasion. Many years ago, the founders of this nation rose up against the concept that they could be taxed arbitrarily without having for themselves a voice in the government. I submit that the pendulum has nearly swung to the opposite end of its path, an equally dangerous proposition --that of representation without taxation.
What do I mean? I mean that as soon as we reach a critical mass of voters in this country who carry little or no liability to pay for the function of government, yet who realize their collective power to lay claim to its seemingly infinite benefits, we will once again have tyranny.
This reminds me of another quote. Winston Churchill once said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter." I don't blame the voter completely in this age. I blame partly a ridiculous system in which candidates have been campaigning for over 2 years, and all we've heard from them are soundbites. I blame a media who has abandoned all pretense of objectivity, and simply signed on as the media wing of the Obama campaign. But the voter is not blameless. In today's culture of celebrity worship, too many prefer to spend their time reading Hollywood gossip magazines and watching the endless drivel broadcast on MTV or E, as if an update on who is in rehab now is far more important than getting to really know the person who will become our next President. Sadly, it is also these voters who likely embrace the political speeches made by their favorite actors about the important political issues of our day, as if that in some perverse way satisfies their civic duty.
America appears ready to elect a man it does not know as President. For those of you reading this blog who will cast your vote for John McCain, I thank you. Even if, like me, there are many others for whom you would prefer to cast your vote besides McCain, we must play the hand we have been dealt. A lack of the best choice must not preclude us from making the better choice.
To those of you who may be reading this blog who intend to cast your vote for Barack Obama, I ask you to consider the following.
Do you know him? Can you trust him? Is his ideology consistent with the Constitution? Does his view of America truly align with your own? In my opinion, Obama is a dishonest and deceitful man. He has consistently changed his positions based on his audience. And I don't just mean the subtle wordsmithing that (unfortunately) accompanies every political campaign. I mean blatantly conflicting statements. In short, I believe the man shamelessly lies in order to sway the hearts of voters.
As an example, over the last week Obama has slowly been changing one of his most prominent lines. Did you believe Obama when he said that only those making above $250,000 a year would see their taxes go up? What about his plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire? Doesn't that automatically increase everyone's taxes? Indeed it does. But somehow Obama has gotten away with the lie. Even worse, now Obama's commercials set the threshold at $200,000. Joe Biden sets it at $150,000. Some day in the near future, a great many Americans are going to wake up and suddenly realize that they are officially "rich." Oh, they won't feel rich. They'll wonder how they became so rich while they are still just getting by on their income. But they will feel the consequences in the form of paying more of their "fair share."
Speaking of fair share, do you really feel comfortable electing a man who bases his tax policies on his own idea of what he believes is fair for the wealthy to pay? Shouldn't the government be concerned only with collecting adequate revenue to carry out its legitimate functions? Yet when Obama was asked why he would want to raise taxes, when the historical data shows an increase in federal revenue when taxes are lowered, Obama rested on fairness. Sure, revenue may be greater if we cut taxes on the rich, but that just isn't fair. The average voter may be shocked to know just how fair the rich's share is. The top 1% of taxpayers collect approximately 19% of income, but carry 39% of the tax burden. Is that fair? The top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of the taxes.
Do you feel comfortable electing a man who wants to punish businesses and the "rich" with higher taxes during a devastating financial crisis? If so, please explain to me how that will help. What we need is successful businesses and more jobs. Obama says he will create jobs. The problem is that Obama doesn't know how to create a job. It is businesses that create jobs, and when businesses are taxed more they spend less creating jobs. Thus, McCain's yet unanswered question to Obama during the final debate, why would you want to raise anyone's taxes in this economy? Obama argues that it is the middle-class and the poor who need these "tax cuts." I will leave aside for now the lie that is the Obama "tax cut" for the poor. As a man named Neal Boortz often says, when was the last time you got a job from a poor person? You don't. Do you want the government to pinch your employer more so that your employer has to figure out how to cut costs to protect his business? Those cost cuts will eventually cost someone his or her job -- maybe mine, maybe yours. Obama wants more money to carry out his spending programs, because he thinks he has the solutions, through government, for our problems. But government handouts don't create jobs. When has the government been effective at solving problems best handled by competition and the free market?
Do you feel comfortable electing a man with so many questionable ties, and so many radical ideologies? I will not go into each association that I find troubling, but here is a quick list:
- William Ayers
- Bernedine Dorn
- Reverand J. Wright
- Father M. Pfleger
- Khalid al-Monsour
- Tony Rezko
- ACORN
These are Obama's friends. If you don't know who they are, and you plan to vote, you better find out before tomorrow. Obama has been able to get by saying that these people aren't advisers, and aren't part of his campaign. I don't care if they aren't your advisers! If John McCain was friends with the grand-master of the KKK, do you think it would matter to people that he didn't list them as advisers?
Perhaps most importantly, Obama's ideology is, to be blunt, un-American. Obama lamented, on tape in 2001, that during the civil rights movement the Supreme Court did not act create redistributive change. Meaning, he wished the Supreme Court had used its power to put in place the type of wealth redistribution that Obama wants to enact legislatively. I want you to, for just a moment, imagine what the reaction would have been of the founding fathers had they been presented with the concept of taking money from Joe in order to pass it on to John in the form of a "tax cut," or "refundable tax credit." That is not freedom. That is not liberty. It is tyranny. In basic terms, it is called theft. America may be at a point where it doesn't like to hear this, but you simply do not have the right to someone else's property. You do not have the right to the fruits of someone else's labor. The constitution was meant to protect your right to your property. Why do you believe it is any politician's right to take it just to give it to you?
Are you comfortable electing a man who has stated that he will put policies in place that will essentially bankrupt the coal industry? Obama wants to make the cost of doing business, in the form of taxes on carbon emissions, so onerous that a very large industry in America will suffer greatly and perhaps collapse. Keep in mind that 49% of our electricity comes from coal. Keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of people are employed by or otherwise have a job because of the coal industry. Does Obama factor in those lost jobs when he talks about the ones he is going to "create"? When discussing the great benefit of his "tax cuts" for the middle class did Obama factor in the huge increase in cost we will see for our electricity when he puts a stranglehold on the coal industry and opposes any more nuclear power? I think not.
Lastly, I want you to ask yourself one simple question as you examine the qualifications of the Presidential candidates. What has Obama ever accomplished? What has the man ever done that makes you think he is qualified for the highest office in this country? Perhaps when you are done criticizing Sarah Palin -- a successful governor -- for her lack of experience, you can turn your intellectual focus on Obama. Are you really willing to roll the dice on a candidate whose experience and abilities we know next to nothing about? When the now infamous "3am phone call" comes, the President of the United States doesn't have the luxury of "voting present." I value this country and my liberty far too much to cast a vote for the type of change Barack Obama promises.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Go Ahead and Take the Day Off to Vote ... Don't Worry, Pay-Day (Inauguration Day) Is Coming Soon!
Here is an Obama ad telling everyone to take the entire day off to vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UFzkO5OhKY
Wait, isn't this the campaign that has people rounding up the homeless and driving them to the voting booths? No pan-handling for you today!
But seriously, how long does it take to vote? Is there really a need to encourage Obama supporters to be LESS productive in today's economy? I guess the average Obama voter is going into the booth with $$$ in their eyes anyway. Why not take the day off? Pretty soon The Chosen One will be giving you checks filled with other people's money!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UFzkO5OhKY
Wait, isn't this the campaign that has people rounding up the homeless and driving them to the voting booths? No pan-handling for you today!
But seriously, how long does it take to vote? Is there really a need to encourage Obama supporters to be LESS productive in today's economy? I guess the average Obama voter is going into the booth with $$$ in their eyes anyway. Why not take the day off? Pretty soon The Chosen One will be giving you checks filled with other people's money!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
A Must Read
As I said a couple of posts back, I honestly believe that if the mainstream media had even a shred of integrity, this election would be over for Barack Obama. In fact, we would currently be choosing between Senator Clinton and Senator McCain. Whatever their motives, the members of the media are absolutely determined to get Barack Obama elected. His credentials simply do not merit the admiration and support he has received from the left. I'll say it again: He's good at speaking and winning elections. But in my mind he has proven himself grossly under-qualified for the position he seeks.
For those of you who read Drudge, you've probably already seen this piece. If you haven't read it, please do. This is a fantastic piece, titled Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?, and it takes the media to task for its unabashed bias. It is very well written, and directly on point. On top of that, it is a quick read, so do it!
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
For those of you who read Drudge, you've probably already seen this piece. If you haven't read it, please do. This is a fantastic piece, titled Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?, and it takes the media to task for its unabashed bias. It is very well written, and directly on point. On top of that, it is a quick read, so do it!
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
Obama's Political Philosophies
Below is a link to an article written by one of the few people who is actually trying to find out what Obama's political core really is.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc3NzZkZDYxODZiZjE2OTg5YWRmNDkzM2U0YTIwZGQ=&w=MA
Also, looks like academia is coming to the defense of Bill Ayers. They say that all that terrorism stuff is just in the past. Unfortunately, it was actually quite recently that Ayers said that he did not regret what he did, and wishes he would have done more. This is a man who helped found the Weather Underground, and bombed government buildings. Targets included the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and building used bythe NYPD. The Weather Underground also conducted armed robberies to finance their attacks, including bank robberies. Americans were killed.
If someone like that was "a guy in my neighborhood," I'd seriously consider moving. If I were on a board with someone like that, I'd resign. If someone like that offered me a job heading up one of his foundations, I'd turn it down. If someone like that hosted a political fundraiser for me, not only would I not attend, but I would publicly denounce any association with that person as strongly as possible and examine my own positions to figure out why in the world I was attracting the support of someone like that in the first place. None of this seems to trouble Barack Obama, except to the extent it is a political liability. Perhaps that is because to Obama, Ayers doesn't seem all that radical.
Here is a petition signed by over 3,000 academics supporting Ayers:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/academics-sign-pro-ayers-petition/
A couple of my favorite names on the list:
- Ward Churchill, the man who pretended to be native american, and who called the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns."
- Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian activist, and former Director of the Palestinian Liberation Organization's press agency in 1982, when the PLO was designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization.
By the way, Khalidi is another one of Obama's old friends that the media doesn't seem to care about. Obama likes to defend his friendships by pointing out that they aren't involved in his campaign or advising him on policy. You don't need them to advise you if you already share their views. I'm not saying that's the case in all circumstances, I'm just saying that nobody has bothered to ask or find out.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc3NzZkZDYxODZiZjE2OTg5YWRmNDkzM2U0YTIwZGQ=&w=MA
Also, looks like academia is coming to the defense of Bill Ayers. They say that all that terrorism stuff is just in the past. Unfortunately, it was actually quite recently that Ayers said that he did not regret what he did, and wishes he would have done more. This is a man who helped found the Weather Underground, and bombed government buildings. Targets included the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and building used bythe NYPD. The Weather Underground also conducted armed robberies to finance their attacks, including bank robberies. Americans were killed.
If someone like that was "a guy in my neighborhood," I'd seriously consider moving. If I were on a board with someone like that, I'd resign. If someone like that offered me a job heading up one of his foundations, I'd turn it down. If someone like that hosted a political fundraiser for me, not only would I not attend, but I would publicly denounce any association with that person as strongly as possible and examine my own positions to figure out why in the world I was attracting the support of someone like that in the first place. None of this seems to trouble Barack Obama, except to the extent it is a political liability. Perhaps that is because to Obama, Ayers doesn't seem all that radical.
Here is a petition signed by over 3,000 academics supporting Ayers:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/academics-sign-pro-ayers-petition/
A couple of my favorite names on the list:
- Ward Churchill, the man who pretended to be native american, and who called the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns."
- Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian activist, and former Director of the Palestinian Liberation Organization's press agency in 1982, when the PLO was designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization.
By the way, Khalidi is another one of Obama's old friends that the media doesn't seem to care about. Obama likes to defend his friendships by pointing out that they aren't involved in his campaign or advising him on policy. You don't need them to advise you if you already share their views. I'm not saying that's the case in all circumstances, I'm just saying that nobody has bothered to ask or find out.
Absolutely Disgraceful
(Please excuse any typos not caught by the spell checker, as I am in a huge hurry to write this)
I have never seen anything like the bias the media has for Obama and Biden, and against McCain and Palin. In fact, "bias" doesn't even begin to describe what is happening in this election. I've now passed the point of "had it" and am flat-out furious.
When in American history has there been a candidate for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES that the country knows so little about? It is not even conceivable to me that the media would have absolutely no interest in finding out who this man is, nor do they have any interest in reporting anything that could be considered negative about either man on the DNC ticket.
Take Biden, for example. Anyone remember his quote about a "three letter word" called J-O-B-S? You may not, because the media didn't seem interested. Certainly, it is not a big deal. But compare that to the treatment given to Palin. Think back to Dan Quayle, who failed to catch a misspelling on the card he was given and repeated it on camera.
What about Biden's grave warning that electing Obama will bring an international crisis within 6 months designed to test the young President? Obama is now trying to spin Biden's comment to mean that either president will face a crisis in the next 6 months. But that's not at all what Biden said. Go back and read the quote. Biden said, among other things: (1) the world will try to test him because he is young (and it is inferred lacks experience), (2) America will have to back Obama because it won't be immediately clear that he has done the right thing in response. I don't know what Biden knows, but that sounds a little strange to me. The world will test Obama because he appears inexperienced and weak, and you'll just have to trust us, because it will appear that we are screwing up the response. Um, OK.
There is so much more, but I only have so much time. Instead, we are talking about the fact that Palin needed new clothes. Of course she needed new clothes! She was suddenly running as the VP of the United States. You think a self-made woman from a small town in Alaska has a wardrobe set aside for that? Can we please find out how much Michelle Obama's clothes cost? How about Hillary? I heard Rush Limbaugh today make a good point as I was picking up some food. A famous designer (don't remember the name), who designed Hillary's pant-suits was shocked that the Palin has to pay for her clothes ... Hillary got them for free. Each pant-suit carries a price tag of well over $6,000, by the way.
One more thing. If anyone did not see the hit-piece (sorry, I mean article) in the NYT about Cindy McCain, you should take a look. Tell me if you aren't depressed and feeling sorry for that poor wretched woman when you're done. Now, go read some of the articles the NYT has written about Michelle Obama. I did a search and found a few. You'll note that the articles linked below (one for Cindy, one for Michelle) actually have a common author. From what I understand, Cindy McCain has spent a great deal of time and money doing good things. But apparently the NYT couldn't find anything nice to say about her. The piece on Cindy McCain was nothing more than an attempt to hurt McCain in the polls and in November (very well-timed, I might add), and it is absolutely despicable.
Cindy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18cindy.html?scp=3&sq=CINDY%20MCCAIN&st=cse
Michelle:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/us/politics/18michelle.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&sq=michelle%20obama&st=cse&scp=4&oref=slogin
I challenge anyone to take a fair look at the election coverage and make a case (go ahead, in a comment) that it has even been anywhere close to the more moderate level of bias we have seen in the past. Even the media doesn't pretend any more. Palin got the CNN reporter who interviewed her the other night to admit it. Dan Rather, who knows quite a bit about media bias, is even admitting it.
The problem is, it will literally make a difference in who the people elect next month. It's one thing for the people to make a decision. It is quite another thing for the people to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, we not only have an uninformed public, but one that has been spoon-fed pure propoganda by a media that is abloultely intent on electing Barack Obama. All you former Hillary supporters should be with me on this. They did it to her too.
I have never seen anything like the bias the media has for Obama and Biden, and against McCain and Palin. In fact, "bias" doesn't even begin to describe what is happening in this election. I've now passed the point of "had it" and am flat-out furious.
When in American history has there been a candidate for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES that the country knows so little about? It is not even conceivable to me that the media would have absolutely no interest in finding out who this man is, nor do they have any interest in reporting anything that could be considered negative about either man on the DNC ticket.
Take Biden, for example. Anyone remember his quote about a "three letter word" called J-O-B-S? You may not, because the media didn't seem interested. Certainly, it is not a big deal. But compare that to the treatment given to Palin. Think back to Dan Quayle, who failed to catch a misspelling on the card he was given and repeated it on camera.
What about Biden's grave warning that electing Obama will bring an international crisis within 6 months designed to test the young President? Obama is now trying to spin Biden's comment to mean that either president will face a crisis in the next 6 months. But that's not at all what Biden said. Go back and read the quote. Biden said, among other things: (1) the world will try to test him because he is young (and it is inferred lacks experience), (2) America will have to back Obama because it won't be immediately clear that he has done the right thing in response. I don't know what Biden knows, but that sounds a little strange to me. The world will test Obama because he appears inexperienced and weak, and you'll just have to trust us, because it will appear that we are screwing up the response. Um, OK.
There is so much more, but I only have so much time. Instead, we are talking about the fact that Palin needed new clothes. Of course she needed new clothes! She was suddenly running as the VP of the United States. You think a self-made woman from a small town in Alaska has a wardrobe set aside for that? Can we please find out how much Michelle Obama's clothes cost? How about Hillary? I heard Rush Limbaugh today make a good point as I was picking up some food. A famous designer (don't remember the name), who designed Hillary's pant-suits was shocked that the Palin has to pay for her clothes ... Hillary got them for free. Each pant-suit carries a price tag of well over $6,000, by the way.
One more thing. If anyone did not see the hit-piece (sorry, I mean article) in the NYT about Cindy McCain, you should take a look. Tell me if you aren't depressed and feeling sorry for that poor wretched woman when you're done. Now, go read some of the articles the NYT has written about Michelle Obama. I did a search and found a few. You'll note that the articles linked below (one for Cindy, one for Michelle) actually have a common author. From what I understand, Cindy McCain has spent a great deal of time and money doing good things. But apparently the NYT couldn't find anything nice to say about her. The piece on Cindy McCain was nothing more than an attempt to hurt McCain in the polls and in November (very well-timed, I might add), and it is absolutely despicable.
Cindy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18cindy.html?scp=3&sq=CINDY%20MCCAIN&st=cse
Michelle:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/us/politics/18michelle.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&sq=michelle%20obama&st=cse&scp=4&oref=slogin
I challenge anyone to take a fair look at the election coverage and make a case (go ahead, in a comment) that it has even been anywhere close to the more moderate level of bias we have seen in the past. Even the media doesn't pretend any more. Palin got the CNN reporter who interviewed her the other night to admit it. Dan Rather, who knows quite a bit about media bias, is even admitting it.
The problem is, it will literally make a difference in who the people elect next month. It's one thing for the people to make a decision. It is quite another thing for the people to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, we not only have an uninformed public, but one that has been spoon-fed pure propoganda by a media that is abloultely intent on electing Barack Obama. All you former Hillary supporters should be with me on this. They did it to her too.
Monday, October 20, 2008
30 Ways to Leave Your Lover -- 30 Years if You Kill and Eat Him
Apparently if you live in the UK and you want to kill your gay lover and then eat him, you only get slapped with 30 years in prison. That just doesn't seem adequate punishment, in my book. The judge called it "one of the most gruesome murders" he'd ever seen. So you give the guy 30 years??? Hey, I've got an idea. How about if you decide to kill people and eat them you never see the light of day again?
Here's the link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,441022,00.html
Here's the link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,441022,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
