We all know what HuffPost considers "news". But when it comes to real news, forget it. For example, try as I might, I could not find any story about how it was proven that 4 of the 5 people arrested for the act of terrorism in trying to blow up the Cleveland bridge on Monday were members of Occupy Wall Street. No surprise that they were OWS, and no surprise that HuffPost/AOL does not want to post that news.
Oh, well. As long as we have FOX News, we can expect to hear both sides (even though they may be biased, they at least tell both sides).
/
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
AOL/HuffPost "News" - Anything BUT...
Today at Huff 'n' Puff, the lead story is about where Mitt Romney keeps his money. Huh???
"Where in the world is Mitt Romney's money? President Barack Obama's re-election campaign launched a new webpage designed to answer that question and attack the presumptive GOP nominee for putting his wealth in offshore accounts. "Mitt Romney has invested his money around the world, from the Cayman Islands to Ireland to Australia," the website reads. "We don’t know if he’s using these accounts to avoid paying his fair share in taxes..."
Coupla things, for those libs who somehow think this is news...
1) It's no one's business where Romney, Obama, or any person keeps his money
2) There is nothing illegal or even wrong with having accounts all over the world - particularly when you have so much money, and many of your business interests are global. By the way - isn't it the liberals who keep saying we need to think "globally"?
3) And as the Obama campaign states, "We don’t know if he’s using these accounts to avoid paying his fair share in taxes..." If that is the case, why even bring it up? There is only one reason - to try and plant seeds of doubt in the minds of the mindless dolts who follow libs like puppies looking for the next handout.
HuffPost/AOL is overtly in the tank for Obama, using manufactured non-stories to fire up dumb people who cannot think for themselves.
Frankly, I think Romney having so much money is actually a GOOD thing, not a bad thing - it shows the American way of capitalism works - if you let it. And I have no problem with where he invests it, either - in fact, Corzine (D) invested his company's money overseas. And Warren Buffett invests overseas. As does George Soros. In fact, ALL the rich liberals invest overseas.
Maybe if America were to create a friendlier environment for wealth, more of it would STAY here.
/
"Where in the world is Mitt Romney's money? President Barack Obama's re-election campaign launched a new webpage designed to answer that question and attack the presumptive GOP nominee for putting his wealth in offshore accounts. "Mitt Romney has invested his money around the world, from the Cayman Islands to Ireland to Australia," the website reads. "We don’t know if he’s using these accounts to avoid paying his fair share in taxes..."
Coupla things, for those libs who somehow think this is news...
1) It's no one's business where Romney, Obama, or any person keeps his money
2) There is nothing illegal or even wrong with having accounts all over the world - particularly when you have so much money, and many of your business interests are global. By the way - isn't it the liberals who keep saying we need to think "globally"?
3) And as the Obama campaign states, "We don’t know if he’s using these accounts to avoid paying his fair share in taxes..." If that is the case, why even bring it up? There is only one reason - to try and plant seeds of doubt in the minds of the mindless dolts who follow libs like puppies looking for the next handout.
HuffPost/AOL is overtly in the tank for Obama, using manufactured non-stories to fire up dumb people who cannot think for themselves.
Frankly, I think Romney having so much money is actually a GOOD thing, not a bad thing - it shows the American way of capitalism works - if you let it. And I have no problem with where he invests it, either - in fact, Corzine (D) invested his company's money overseas. And Warren Buffett invests overseas. As does George Soros. In fact, ALL the rich liberals invest overseas.
Maybe if America were to create a friendlier environment for wealth, more of it would STAY here.
/
Two Kinds Of People
Have you ever noticed that some people appreciate the things you do, and others do not? Here's an example:
Type 1: you open the door for them and they smile and say thank you, every time.
Type 2: you open the door for them four times, and they say nothing - probably don't even look at you. Then you decide to not open the door for them the fifth time and they insult you for not opening the door.
Which type are you? Do you recognize what others do? Do you appreciate them? Do you SHOW it? Or do you just ignore them, then berate them when they don't kowtow to you?
As far as I am concerned, all the Type 2 folks can set sail on the Titanic II and head north looking for an iceberg.
/
Type 1: you open the door for them and they smile and say thank you, every time.
Type 2: you open the door for them four times, and they say nothing - probably don't even look at you. Then you decide to not open the door for them the fifth time and they insult you for not opening the door.
Which type are you? Do you recognize what others do? Do you appreciate them? Do you SHOW it? Or do you just ignore them, then berate them when they don't kowtow to you?
As far as I am concerned, all the Type 2 folks can set sail on the Titanic II and head north looking for an iceberg.
/
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Finally Devolved Into A Moron?
Rev. Jesse Jackson stated on his blog that we should "Make Public Colleges Free for All Who Qualify".
I believe Rev. Jackson has finally devolved into a liberal moron. Literally hundreds of thousands of students would qualify each year. It costs community colleges thousands per student each year, just to operate. Therefore, the cost (to taxpayers, of course) would be in the hundreds of millions each year. Every year.
I have an idea - let's ask Reverend Jackson to pick up the tab. I sure as Hell can't afford to send kids to college every year!
These liberal/progressive/socialists want everything to be free. Yet none has offered any idea as to where the money would come from, because NOTHING is truly free. EVERYTHING must be paid for by someone.
I suggest that the liberals pay for all the things THEY want, and conservatives only pay for what THEY want.
/
I believe Rev. Jackson has finally devolved into a liberal moron. Literally hundreds of thousands of students would qualify each year. It costs community colleges thousands per student each year, just to operate. Therefore, the cost (to taxpayers, of course) would be in the hundreds of millions each year. Every year.
I have an idea - let's ask Reverend Jackson to pick up the tab. I sure as Hell can't afford to send kids to college every year!
These liberal/progressive/socialists want everything to be free. Yet none has offered any idea as to where the money would come from, because NOTHING is truly free. EVERYTHING must be paid for by someone.
I suggest that the liberals pay for all the things THEY want, and conservatives only pay for what THEY want.
/
How To Hold A Non-Protest
Today the mighty unions, Occupy Wall Street crowd and other disenchanted communists and socialists had planned a huge nationwide protest/rally. They expected thousands in NYC alone. The liberal media hyped this coming event as if it were the trial of Dick Cheney.
About 200 showed up.
Suddenly, the lib media is silent about this non-event.
But I was astonished when one intrepid reporter cornered a protester and asked flat out, "What do you want?" Can you guess his response?
"We want a country where everything is free. Free food, free housing..." His list of "wants" ran on. I wonder if idiots like that ever stop to wonder where all that free stuff would come from. If it's all free, no one would work. No one would therefore pay taxes. And the government would have no money to pay for all that free stuff. But hey, let's not confuse drug-fogged liberal, socialist brains with anything resembling facts.
It really galls me that so many useless people really believe they are entitled to what I worked for. They expect to be able to take from me simply because I have more than they. It never occurs to them that I have more because I DO more. I EARN more. While they partied and toked, I spent 7 years studying hard in college. While they mooched off Mom and Dad, I went into $160,000 debt for college. While they sat around toking and wasting their lives, I spent nearly 20 years working over 100 hours a week to start a successful business. And now that I am successful, they believe they have a right to take what I earned (which they COULD have earned, but refused to).
I blame their parents for never reading "The Little Red Hen" to those losers.
/
About 200 showed up.
Suddenly, the lib media is silent about this non-event.
But I was astonished when one intrepid reporter cornered a protester and asked flat out, "What do you want?" Can you guess his response?
"We want a country where everything is free. Free food, free housing..." His list of "wants" ran on. I wonder if idiots like that ever stop to wonder where all that free stuff would come from. If it's all free, no one would work. No one would therefore pay taxes. And the government would have no money to pay for all that free stuff. But hey, let's not confuse drug-fogged liberal, socialist brains with anything resembling facts.
It really galls me that so many useless people really believe they are entitled to what I worked for. They expect to be able to take from me simply because I have more than they. It never occurs to them that I have more because I DO more. I EARN more. While they partied and toked, I spent 7 years studying hard in college. While they mooched off Mom and Dad, I went into $160,000 debt for college. While they sat around toking and wasting their lives, I spent nearly 20 years working over 100 hours a week to start a successful business. And now that I am successful, they believe they have a right to take what I earned (which they COULD have earned, but refused to).
I blame their parents for never reading "The Little Red Hen" to those losers.
/
Always Good For A Laugh
Was checking out a (dubious) story on AOL/HuffPost. The headline reads "Favorability Of Supreme Court Hits New Low".
Well, maybe yes - maybe no.
The story goes on to say how the Supreme Court had a favorability rating of around 70 or so, and now it's down to 52. But here is the rest of the story, according to Pew Research, who conducted that poll...
First, the UNFAVORABILITY rating remains virtually the same as before - 28% in 1985, 29% today. So, they are not held to be any more UNFAVORABLE.
The difference in favorability lies in the fact that in 1985 there were 8% who held "no opinion". That has risen to 29%.
It is believed the people expressing "no opinion" has risen because they are waiting to see how the Supremes rule on ObamaCare and immigration.
But here is the point that HuffPost either missed or simply avoided - the UNFAVORABILITY rating of the Supreme Court has not changed. And I believe after they rule on those crucial issues in June and rule in favor of Arizona and rule against ObamaCare, those with "no opinion" would change their vote to "favorable".
/
Well, maybe yes - maybe no.
The story goes on to say how the Supreme Court had a favorability rating of around 70 or so, and now it's down to 52. But here is the rest of the story, according to Pew Research, who conducted that poll...
First, the UNFAVORABILITY rating remains virtually the same as before - 28% in 1985, 29% today. So, they are not held to be any more UNFAVORABLE.
The difference in favorability lies in the fact that in 1985 there were 8% who held "no opinion". That has risen to 29%.
It is believed the people expressing "no opinion" has risen because they are waiting to see how the Supremes rule on ObamaCare and immigration.
But here is the point that HuffPost either missed or simply avoided - the UNFAVORABILITY rating of the Supreme Court has not changed. And I believe after they rule on those crucial issues in June and rule in favor of Arizona and rule against ObamaCare, those with "no opinion" would change their vote to "favorable".
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)