Just a brief side note of interest...
Every week the administration puts out the latest unemployment figures. And every week for 63 of the last 64 weeks the figures were bogus, and were quietly "adjusted" a week later. The result? The administration could say, "It's improving!", when in fact, it was not. They would toot the horn of success loudly when the bogus numbers were released, but when they got adjusted a week later, it was quiet and without fanfare.
Most people have no idea that the unemployment figures claimed to be lower than they really were for 63 of the last 64 weeks. But now YOU know...
/
Friday, May 25, 2012
Perspective - Something Washington Lacks?
Let's see if I have this straight...
* GSA blows over $800,000 on an "over-the-top" party for themselves in Vegas
* The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (those libs on the West Coast) plan to blow a million bucks on a party for themselves in Hawaii
* $60 BILLION is wasted EACH YEAR on Medicare fraud
* $40 billion in other obvious waste and redundant costs have been discovered, but nothing done to stop them
*Solyndra blew $500 million of taxpayer money, courtesy of Obama
* Federal employees owe the I.R.S. nearly a billion in back taxes
* Latest study shows $750 million lost in food stamp fraud
I won't bore you with the complete list - it goes on to the tune of half a trillion dollars. So that would beg the question...
"Why do the Democrats say we need to raise taxes, since the increase in taxes on "the rich" would only bring in a fraction of what is already being wasted?"
Here's an idea - cut out the waste and fraud and we could CUT taxes for EVERYONE.
No, we do not need to raise taxes - the only purpose of that would be so crooks can steal even more.
/
* GSA blows over $800,000 on an "over-the-top" party for themselves in Vegas
* The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (those libs on the West Coast) plan to blow a million bucks on a party for themselves in Hawaii
* $60 BILLION is wasted EACH YEAR on Medicare fraud
* $40 billion in other obvious waste and redundant costs have been discovered, but nothing done to stop them
*Solyndra blew $500 million of taxpayer money, courtesy of Obama
* Federal employees owe the I.R.S. nearly a billion in back taxes
* Latest study shows $750 million lost in food stamp fraud
I won't bore you with the complete list - it goes on to the tune of half a trillion dollars. So that would beg the question...
"Why do the Democrats say we need to raise taxes, since the increase in taxes on "the rich" would only bring in a fraction of what is already being wasted?"
Here's an idea - cut out the waste and fraud and we could CUT taxes for EVERYONE.
No, we do not need to raise taxes - the only purpose of that would be so crooks can steal even more.
/
The Latest Distortion of the Truth
Mitt Romney has been mildly slamming President Obama for his wild spending, claiming Obama has spent more taxpayer money, faster than any other president.
Yesterday President Obama fired back, claiming that government spending is as low as it has been in 60 years.
Here are the facts:
1) CURRENTLY, right now, this year, government spending IS lower than it has been in 60 years, running at about 1%
2) BUT, over the previous 2 years of the Obama administration, spending was HIGHER than ever before, running at about 10%.
So, technically President obama is correct in saying that spending IS (currently) at a low, but is distorting the truth by not including ALL the spending he has done during his term in office. If the spending for the last three years is taken into consideration, rather than a momentary snapshot, then Mitt Romney is correct - Obama HAS spent more, faster, than any other president.
For Mr. Obama to claim spending is down is kinda like Usama bin Laden at the moment the Navy Seals broke into his compound. Bin Laden could have correctly said, "Hey, guys, I'm not hurting anyone", because at that moment he was not hurting anyone.
Before you give any credence to anything a liberal says, please note that they play word games, and use words to distort the actual facts. Make sure you are hearing what they are really saying. When Obama says, "We are now spending less," he literally means NOW - this moment. And that distorts the truth and deceives the uninformed listener.
/
Yesterday President Obama fired back, claiming that government spending is as low as it has been in 60 years.
Here are the facts:
1) CURRENTLY, right now, this year, government spending IS lower than it has been in 60 years, running at about 1%
2) BUT, over the previous 2 years of the Obama administration, spending was HIGHER than ever before, running at about 10%.
So, technically President obama is correct in saying that spending IS (currently) at a low, but is distorting the truth by not including ALL the spending he has done during his term in office. If the spending for the last three years is taken into consideration, rather than a momentary snapshot, then Mitt Romney is correct - Obama HAS spent more, faster, than any other president.
For Mr. Obama to claim spending is down is kinda like Usama bin Laden at the moment the Navy Seals broke into his compound. Bin Laden could have correctly said, "Hey, guys, I'm not hurting anyone", because at that moment he was not hurting anyone.
Before you give any credence to anything a liberal says, please note that they play word games, and use words to distort the actual facts. Make sure you are hearing what they are really saying. When Obama says, "We are now spending less," he literally means NOW - this moment. And that distorts the truth and deceives the uninformed listener.
/
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Why They Don't Compromise
Every time I turn on the news I hear pundits saying the parties in Congress need to compromise. The Democrats say the Republicans won't compromise, and the Republicans say the Democrats won't budge. So what's the real problem?
Those who say there should be compromise are over-simplifying the problem and their ill-conceived solution. This is because a person of principle should never, ever compromise on a principle. Compromise has a place in ironing out details. But never in asking a person to betray their principles.
Example: Let's say one person is religious, another is atheist. One's religion says he must worship God every day, the other says we should not worship ANY day. A compromise would be, "OK, I'll worship on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays only." That "compromise" is absurd - it solves nothing, makes no one happy and forces both to betray their beliefs.
But let's say that both are religious, and the debate is what date we should celebrate Easter. Since that is a detail rather than a principle (no one knows the date of the true Easter), they can compromise and choose a date that both can grudgingly accept.
The problem in Washington is one of opposing principles, not details. Ideally, both parties want the same thing, but bicker over the details. But that is not what we have. We have two diametrically opposed ideologies, just as we did prior to the Civil War. Back then, if the issue had been not whether or not we should have slaves, but rather how they should be treated, there could be compromise. But the issue was one of opposing principles, so compromise was not the answer.
If we want to break the gridlock in DC, the first thing we need to do is decide, as a nation, the direction we want to travel - a government-controlled nanny state, or a government controlled by and for the people. That is a core principle. Only when we consciously decide what kind of country we want can we then take the time to study the candidates for Congress and the White House, and vote not for a party, but for the people who will take us in our chosen direction. THEN we can have compromise on the details of how to get where we want to go.
Compromise is good, as long as it is not principles that are getting compromised. And whether or not the gridlock will cease depends not upon Congress, nor the President. It depends on US, making a choice as to what kind of country we want, and taking the time to become informed, and then vote.
For Thomas Jefferson was absolutely correct when he said, "Every person gets the government they deserve." If people do not keep informed, and research the facts, and act on it, then they do not deserve a government that will serve them as they would wish.
/
Those who say there should be compromise are over-simplifying the problem and their ill-conceived solution. This is because a person of principle should never, ever compromise on a principle. Compromise has a place in ironing out details. But never in asking a person to betray their principles.
Example: Let's say one person is religious, another is atheist. One's religion says he must worship God every day, the other says we should not worship ANY day. A compromise would be, "OK, I'll worship on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays only." That "compromise" is absurd - it solves nothing, makes no one happy and forces both to betray their beliefs.
But let's say that both are religious, and the debate is what date we should celebrate Easter. Since that is a detail rather than a principle (no one knows the date of the true Easter), they can compromise and choose a date that both can grudgingly accept.
The problem in Washington is one of opposing principles, not details. Ideally, both parties want the same thing, but bicker over the details. But that is not what we have. We have two diametrically opposed ideologies, just as we did prior to the Civil War. Back then, if the issue had been not whether or not we should have slaves, but rather how they should be treated, there could be compromise. But the issue was one of opposing principles, so compromise was not the answer.
If we want to break the gridlock in DC, the first thing we need to do is decide, as a nation, the direction we want to travel - a government-controlled nanny state, or a government controlled by and for the people. That is a core principle. Only when we consciously decide what kind of country we want can we then take the time to study the candidates for Congress and the White House, and vote not for a party, but for the people who will take us in our chosen direction. THEN we can have compromise on the details of how to get where we want to go.
Compromise is good, as long as it is not principles that are getting compromised. And whether or not the gridlock will cease depends not upon Congress, nor the President. It depends on US, making a choice as to what kind of country we want, and taking the time to become informed, and then vote.
For Thomas Jefferson was absolutely correct when he said, "Every person gets the government they deserve." If people do not keep informed, and research the facts, and act on it, then they do not deserve a government that will serve them as they would wish.
/
When Is Punishment Not Punishment?
When it is unions "punishing" their members.
Over the last few years I have seen dozens of instances where union members, having done something despicable, get "punished" with a paid vacation - "suspended WITH PAY."
I sure wish I could get punished like that. In fact, I'll bet there are union members who PURPOSELY do bad things just so they CAN be punished like that - to get paid for going fishing, or watching TV.
The latest example is the teacher who was suspended with pay for teaching her students a bunch of lies, saying "many people were arrested for saying bad things about Bush", and going off on a kid who simply said "Obama is not God," telling him he could be arrested for slandering the president.
Gee, if people were arrested for saying bad things about Bush, why are the Dixie Chicks not doing 30 years in a fed prison? And Chris Matthews - he should be doing life without parole.
This teacher is clearly unfit to teach our children. She tries to brainwash and indoctrinate them, using lies and even threats if they disagree with her personal political views. But she belongs to a union, so she can do no wrong that would result in being fired. Her only "punishment" is a paid vacation - just like hundreds of other union offenders.
/
Over the last few years I have seen dozens of instances where union members, having done something despicable, get "punished" with a paid vacation - "suspended WITH PAY."
I sure wish I could get punished like that. In fact, I'll bet there are union members who PURPOSELY do bad things just so they CAN be punished like that - to get paid for going fishing, or watching TV.
The latest example is the teacher who was suspended with pay for teaching her students a bunch of lies, saying "many people were arrested for saying bad things about Bush", and going off on a kid who simply said "Obama is not God," telling him he could be arrested for slandering the president.
Gee, if people were arrested for saying bad things about Bush, why are the Dixie Chicks not doing 30 years in a fed prison? And Chris Matthews - he should be doing life without parole.
This teacher is clearly unfit to teach our children. She tries to brainwash and indoctrinate them, using lies and even threats if they disagree with her personal political views. But she belongs to a union, so she can do no wrong that would result in being fired. Her only "punishment" is a paid vacation - just like hundreds of other union offenders.
/
Monday, May 21, 2012
Law Of The Sea Treaty
Few people are aware of the great danger in the works as I write this. Obama and liberal Democrats are pushing the ratification of the LOST Treaty in the next few weeks. So, how does this endanger America?
LOST was formulated by the U.N., which consists of dozens of nations that hate America. The treaty would give the U.N. the power to destroy America, literally. For example, it allows the U.N. to force - FORCE - America to give up large portions of its royalties on gas and oil to other nations. It could FORCE America to shut down coal mining and coal-powered plants - from whence we get 70% of our electricity. It will control sea lanes currently controlled by the U.S. Navy.
Are you getting it? Do you see what is going on? The U.N. is striking out to be THE One World Government by taking us down.
Do you think, "Oh, so what - we can just back out of it when we get a new president and Congress." Sorry, but no. Under our own Constitution in the Supremacy clause, America is OBLIGATED to honor any treaty we enter into. We cannot revoke it, nor back out.
Need proof I'm not crazy? See the Forbes article or the Tea Party article.
Obama and the liberal left are selling America down the river. And no one is talking about it, because the liberal lamestream media does not want you to know.
Here's an idea - copy this, paste it into an email and send it to everyone you know. Ask them to contact their Congressmen and women and tell them VOTE NO on the LOST Treaty.
/
LOST was formulated by the U.N., which consists of dozens of nations that hate America. The treaty would give the U.N. the power to destroy America, literally. For example, it allows the U.N. to force - FORCE - America to give up large portions of its royalties on gas and oil to other nations. It could FORCE America to shut down coal mining and coal-powered plants - from whence we get 70% of our electricity. It will control sea lanes currently controlled by the U.S. Navy.
Are you getting it? Do you see what is going on? The U.N. is striking out to be THE One World Government by taking us down.
Do you think, "Oh, so what - we can just back out of it when we get a new president and Congress." Sorry, but no. Under our own Constitution in the Supremacy clause, America is OBLIGATED to honor any treaty we enter into. We cannot revoke it, nor back out.
Need proof I'm not crazy? See the Forbes article or the Tea Party article.
Obama and the liberal left are selling America down the river. And no one is talking about it, because the liberal lamestream media does not want you to know.
Here's an idea - copy this, paste it into an email and send it to everyone you know. Ask them to contact their Congressmen and women and tell them VOTE NO on the LOST Treaty.
/
Impossibility - Trickle UP Economics
OK, OK! I find it disturbing that so many uninformed non-thinkers could p[ossibly still believe in trickle-up economics. It is IMPOSSIBLE for trickle-up economics to work. If anyone doubts this, consider...
Economics have to begin at one end of the cycle or the other - either the very top, or the very bottom. Now think who is at the very bottom - the abject poor. They HAVE NO MONEY, and therefore cannot trickle anything up.
But then the liberal nutjobs say, "Oh, but that is why we give them welfare, food stamps, Section 8 housing, fuel assistance, WIC etc. - and THAT is what they trickle up.
OK - but think for just one little moment - where did that "welfare money" come from? It comes from the income taxes that people at the top pay! It did not come from the poor, because they do not pay income taxes.
And that is exactly why the liberals keep screaming to "tax the rich" even more - to provide even MORE money for the poor to "trickle up". But they are not smart enough to understand that the ONLY reason it can trickle up at all is because it FIRST had to TRICKLE DOWN from taxes paid by the rich.
No, trickle-up cannot work because wealth cannot even enter into the cycle until it is first created. And the poor create no wealth. If the poor cannot produce or create wealth, it simply cannot trickle up. The money they get from welfare was not created by them - it was created by the rich and, through taxes on the rich, trickled down TO them. The ONLY reason they have welfare is because of trickle-DOWN economics.
Anyone who buys into the "trickle-up" theory of economics just does not have clue #1 as to how economies work.
/
Economics have to begin at one end of the cycle or the other - either the very top, or the very bottom. Now think who is at the very bottom - the abject poor. They HAVE NO MONEY, and therefore cannot trickle anything up.
But then the liberal nutjobs say, "Oh, but that is why we give them welfare, food stamps, Section 8 housing, fuel assistance, WIC etc. - and THAT is what they trickle up.
OK - but think for just one little moment - where did that "welfare money" come from? It comes from the income taxes that people at the top pay! It did not come from the poor, because they do not pay income taxes.
And that is exactly why the liberals keep screaming to "tax the rich" even more - to provide even MORE money for the poor to "trickle up". But they are not smart enough to understand that the ONLY reason it can trickle up at all is because it FIRST had to TRICKLE DOWN from taxes paid by the rich.
No, trickle-up cannot work because wealth cannot even enter into the cycle until it is first created. And the poor create no wealth. If the poor cannot produce or create wealth, it simply cannot trickle up. The money they get from welfare was not created by them - it was created by the rich and, through taxes on the rich, trickled down TO them. The ONLY reason they have welfare is because of trickle-DOWN economics.
Anyone who buys into the "trickle-up" theory of economics just does not have clue #1 as to how economies work.
/
Campaign Stoops To New Low
Everyone except the brain dead understand that in this world there are winners and losers. That is how it must be - it's the same everywhere in nature. It's how things are. So, it is only natural that some people will lose jobs while others get jobs.
Over the adult lifetime of Mitt Romney, some people lost their jobs in things he had a hand in. But the true facts show that for every person who lost a job, about 90 others GOT jobs. Winners and losers. But in the case of Romney the winners were about 90-1, which is the best I have ever seen. (GST Steel lost 720 jobs, but the new steel company Romney helped create has hired over 6000). And of those who lost their jobs, it was not because of Romney - it was because their companies simply were not viable, and were doomed to go under in any event. Venture capital companies like Bain are not called in unless a company is in financially dire straits.
So what does the Obama Campaign do? They seek out those few who were losers and put together a very nasty, unfair and totally dishonest ad to make it look like Romney was a job KILLER, not a job MAKER. That is lower than whale crap, and that's at the bottom of the ocean.
Which is where that ad belongs - along with those responsible for it.
But what really ticks me off is the arrogant hypocrisy of the left - especially that moronic elf, Axelrod. He and others on the left tell Republicans, "Oh, no, you have to take THAT off the table - it's not fair. And you have to take this off the table, too." And then they put every nasty lie they can come up with ON the table. It's like the spoiled little cheaters we all knew growing up who, in a fight, would say "I give up - let's quit". And as soon as you say "OK" they hit you unexpectedly. Well, that's Axelrod and his minions. Frankly, I would like to see the Republicans take NOTHING off the table. If it's true, put it out there. Let the people know all sides of the other candidate.
My message to the losers in the ad and the loser Democrats who produced it - stop whining and trying to blame everyone else and get off your asses and do something to HELP yourselves and help heal this country. Stop the lies, distortions and deceit and teach our children that adults can play together without destroying one another with vitriol that has no place in a decent world.
If you cannot do that, get the Hell out of the way!
/
Over the adult lifetime of Mitt Romney, some people lost their jobs in things he had a hand in. But the true facts show that for every person who lost a job, about 90 others GOT jobs. Winners and losers. But in the case of Romney the winners were about 90-1, which is the best I have ever seen. (GST Steel lost 720 jobs, but the new steel company Romney helped create has hired over 6000). And of those who lost their jobs, it was not because of Romney - it was because their companies simply were not viable, and were doomed to go under in any event. Venture capital companies like Bain are not called in unless a company is in financially dire straits.
So what does the Obama Campaign do? They seek out those few who were losers and put together a very nasty, unfair and totally dishonest ad to make it look like Romney was a job KILLER, not a job MAKER. That is lower than whale crap, and that's at the bottom of the ocean.
Which is where that ad belongs - along with those responsible for it.
But what really ticks me off is the arrogant hypocrisy of the left - especially that moronic elf, Axelrod. He and others on the left tell Republicans, "Oh, no, you have to take THAT off the table - it's not fair. And you have to take this off the table, too." And then they put every nasty lie they can come up with ON the table. It's like the spoiled little cheaters we all knew growing up who, in a fight, would say "I give up - let's quit". And as soon as you say "OK" they hit you unexpectedly. Well, that's Axelrod and his minions. Frankly, I would like to see the Republicans take NOTHING off the table. If it's true, put it out there. Let the people know all sides of the other candidate.
My message to the losers in the ad and the loser Democrats who produced it - stop whining and trying to blame everyone else and get off your asses and do something to HELP yourselves and help heal this country. Stop the lies, distortions and deceit and teach our children that adults can play together without destroying one another with vitriol that has no place in a decent world.
If you cannot do that, get the Hell out of the way!
/
Friday, May 18, 2012
Curious
I am not a "birther". I do not know where Obama was born, nor do I care. I only want him gone from public office before he makes a bigger mess of America. That said...
Obama's former literary agency that got his books published wrote a brief biography in the 1991 booklet stating Obama was "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii." I am unsure why they would have written that if it were not based on facts.
Of course, the agent responsible has now come out and said that it was some sort of editing error. Being agents of Obama, what else COULD she say?
But even more curious - Obama, himself, never disputed that claim. Did he not notice it? Do agents not have writers "proof" such things?
Again, I really don't care. But I do find it to be a curious thing...
/
Obama's former literary agency that got his books published wrote a brief biography in the 1991 booklet stating Obama was "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii." I am unsure why they would have written that if it were not based on facts.
Of course, the agent responsible has now come out and said that it was some sort of editing error. Being agents of Obama, what else COULD she say?
But even more curious - Obama, himself, never disputed that claim. Did he not notice it? Do agents not have writers "proof" such things?
Again, I really don't care. But I do find it to be a curious thing...
/
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Victimology
America is suffering an economic fall not because capitalism has failed, but because of "victimology". When I was growing up, personal responsibility was not only the norm, but was required if you were to survive. Independence. Doing for oneself.
Then came the '60's and the radical movement of liberal progressives, capitalizing on "flower power", hippie communes and anti-war protests. And since then, many of those people are now in government.
Liberal progressives require victims. If there are no people who feel victimized, liberal progressives cannot convince them to protest things the way they are. And when there are not enough victims, they create victims, using ploys like welfare and other entitlements. They garner the votes of minorities, for example, by offering them food stamps, Section 8 housing, fuel assistance and other entitlements, telling the minorities that they DESERVE these things because they are VICTIMS. Little do most minorities realize the hard truth - that it is the liberals who made them victims by getting them addicted to handouts instead of having to earn anything on their own. There is no chance to get ahead and succeed to something greater while you are on welfare.
But the really sad thing is that liberal progressives actually see themselves as victims, as well. They do not hold themselves responsible for anything. For example, they refuse to accept responsibility for getting pregnant and blame those who would prevent abortions or birth control.
Here is a real-life example of how a liberal progressive thinks ---
I wrote over 30 books, and developed specialized software, all protected by copyrights and trademarks. A man in Colorado (imagine that!) who happens to be a liberal progressive decided to steal my works and sell them as his own, making a lot of money at my expense. He got away with it for 6 years. When he refused to stop, I had to spend over $25,000 suing him. He fought it every step, claiming he had a "right" to steal my works because he needed the money. The court, of course, found him guilty of infringing (14 counts) and ordered him to pay me a rather hefty sum.
Here it is 4 years later and he has not paid a dime. He refuses, claiming that he doesn't have to pay me because he is old and has medical problems. [NOTE: I, too, am old and have medical problems].
So now this progressive liberal is claiming to be a victim. According to him, I have victimized him by not letting him profit from my work, and I am victimizing him again by asking him to pay what he owes. Victimology.
He has even chosen to post such nonsense online, in the hopes that his rants, if made public, will somehow convince me to forget what he owes.
Not a chance. I will be filing a motion for Contempt of Court against this clown. Then as he sits in jail, he can tell the other cons that he, too, is a victim - just like them!
The point is this - America is fast becoming a nation of whiny, self-made victims who believe the world owes them a living. They believe they are entitled, because the liberals have convinced them that they are entitled because they are victims. Liberals do this so they can gain power - after all, who is going to bite the hand of the Democrats that feed them the welfare?
As for me, I believe my Dad was right. He said the world DOES owe me a living - but I have to work like Hell to collect it!
/
Then came the '60's and the radical movement of liberal progressives, capitalizing on "flower power", hippie communes and anti-war protests. And since then, many of those people are now in government.
Liberal progressives require victims. If there are no people who feel victimized, liberal progressives cannot convince them to protest things the way they are. And when there are not enough victims, they create victims, using ploys like welfare and other entitlements. They garner the votes of minorities, for example, by offering them food stamps, Section 8 housing, fuel assistance and other entitlements, telling the minorities that they DESERVE these things because they are VICTIMS. Little do most minorities realize the hard truth - that it is the liberals who made them victims by getting them addicted to handouts instead of having to earn anything on their own. There is no chance to get ahead and succeed to something greater while you are on welfare.
But the really sad thing is that liberal progressives actually see themselves as victims, as well. They do not hold themselves responsible for anything. For example, they refuse to accept responsibility for getting pregnant and blame those who would prevent abortions or birth control.
Here is a real-life example of how a liberal progressive thinks ---
I wrote over 30 books, and developed specialized software, all protected by copyrights and trademarks. A man in Colorado (imagine that!) who happens to be a liberal progressive decided to steal my works and sell them as his own, making a lot of money at my expense. He got away with it for 6 years. When he refused to stop, I had to spend over $25,000 suing him. He fought it every step, claiming he had a "right" to steal my works because he needed the money. The court, of course, found him guilty of infringing (14 counts) and ordered him to pay me a rather hefty sum.
Here it is 4 years later and he has not paid a dime. He refuses, claiming that he doesn't have to pay me because he is old and has medical problems. [NOTE: I, too, am old and have medical problems].
So now this progressive liberal is claiming to be a victim. According to him, I have victimized him by not letting him profit from my work, and I am victimizing him again by asking him to pay what he owes. Victimology.
He has even chosen to post such nonsense online, in the hopes that his rants, if made public, will somehow convince me to forget what he owes.
Not a chance. I will be filing a motion for Contempt of Court against this clown. Then as he sits in jail, he can tell the other cons that he, too, is a victim - just like them!
The point is this - America is fast becoming a nation of whiny, self-made victims who believe the world owes them a living. They believe they are entitled, because the liberals have convinced them that they are entitled because they are victims. Liberals do this so they can gain power - after all, who is going to bite the hand of the Democrats that feed them the welfare?
As for me, I believe my Dad was right. He said the world DOES owe me a living - but I have to work like Hell to collect it!
/
Monday, May 14, 2012
'Tis The Season Of Deceit & Dishonesty
The Obama campaign put out a two-minute video and a six-minute video featuring interviews with former workers at GST Steel, a company acquired by Romney's private equity firm Bain Capital in 1993. GST shut down its Kansas City plant in 2001, costing about 750 workers their jobs.
Of course, there is a lot the Obama campaign is NOT telling, and that is what makes their ads dishonest and deceitful. For example, Romney was no longer running the day-to-day activities at Bain Capital when GST Steel went bankrupt in 2001. And they don't mention that 17 other steel companies (including the largest one, Bethlehem Steel) also went bankrupt that year because foreign countries were dumping cheap steel in the U.S. And they don't mention that Romney was also responsible for starting another steel company that succeeded and hired over 6000 people.
And this: Bain Capital only took over businesses that were already in financial trouble, and already headed for bankruptcy. Some they were able to save; some not.
And finally: It was Romney's JOB to create profit for Bain Capital investors. It was NOT his job to create jobs. And Romney obviously did the job well. On the other hand, it HAS been Obama's job to create jobs and he has not done so. That begs the question: Do we want someone who gets a job DONE, or someone who cannot?
/
Of course, there is a lot the Obama campaign is NOT telling, and that is what makes their ads dishonest and deceitful. For example, Romney was no longer running the day-to-day activities at Bain Capital when GST Steel went bankrupt in 2001. And they don't mention that 17 other steel companies (including the largest one, Bethlehem Steel) also went bankrupt that year because foreign countries were dumping cheap steel in the U.S. And they don't mention that Romney was also responsible for starting another steel company that succeeded and hired over 6000 people.
And this: Bain Capital only took over businesses that were already in financial trouble, and already headed for bankruptcy. Some they were able to save; some not.
And finally: It was Romney's JOB to create profit for Bain Capital investors. It was NOT his job to create jobs. And Romney obviously did the job well. On the other hand, it HAS been Obama's job to create jobs and he has not done so. That begs the question: Do we want someone who gets a job DONE, or someone who cannot?
/
Sunday, May 13, 2012
For The Doubting Thomas
Every once in awhile I get mail and comments telling me that the lamestream media is not particularly liberal and not in the tank for Obama. This, in spite of the 18 magazine and newspaper pictures in 2008 showing Obama with a halo. Well, for those who still doubt, check out the next Newsweek cover...
/
/
Friday, May 11, 2012
Liberal Media Is At It Again
This from Yahoo News today...
"Bristol Palin is sparking a social media backlash for disagreeing with President Barack Obama's support of same-sex marriage. The former Dancing with the Stars contestant, author and unwed mother..."
Notice how they automatically try to smear someone that disagrees with them? They just HAD to throw in "...and unwed mother", as if to point out that her marital status somehow makes her unworthy of having an opinion on gay marriage.
Once again the liberal media tries to shut down free speech when it is a conservative who is speaking. And once again they do it in an underhanded way.
The non-news article went on to post several tweets by liberal morons all insulting Bristol Palin personally, rather than debate her position. Again, typical of the idiots on the left - they know their arguments have no merit so they attack their opponents with personal slurs and smears.
It's like when that moron Howard Dean says Republicans are stupid, hate women, hate gays and are racist etc. Well, I am a Republican. With an I.Q. that would dwarf any number he could probably count to I am not stupid. Holding a 4.0 GPA through 7 years of college I am not ignorant. I disapprove of gay MARRIAGE but have several gay friends, so I don't "hate gays" and I'm not homophobic. I simply disagree as to whether they should marry. I do not think they should be ostracized for their lifestyle - they should have all the same rights as married couples. But not MARRIAGE, because I believe that institution is a CHURCH function, not a state function. And I certainly do not hate women - my mother was a woman. So is my wife. And my daughter. Love 'em all. And racist? That's a joke! I married a Penobscot Indian and many of my closest friends are minorities.
[SIDE NOTE] Did you notice that in 2004 the Democrats had Howard Dean and John Edwards as their choices for president? That says it all!
It's far-left lunatics like Howard Dean and the liberal media who are feeding the hatred and division we now see in America. And President Obama, in lock-step with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is leading them with his "war on women", "war on wealth", "war on Arizona", "war on non-union shops", "war on Catholics", "war on Republicans", "war on straight marriage" etc. The only people he has not actively divided are the far-left liberals who support him and the Muslim Brotherhood (a terrorist organization) that he invited to the White House.
I say Bristol Palin has every right to express her opinion without being subjected to smears, slurs and personal insults. And it is high time sane and reasonable people of both parties should take the far-left and far-right haters to task, and shut them down. Shun them. Ostracize them. Call them out. We do not need their vitriol. And we certainly do not need a President who not only encourages them, but leads them.
/
"Bristol Palin is sparking a social media backlash for disagreeing with President Barack Obama's support of same-sex marriage. The former Dancing with the Stars contestant, author and unwed mother..."
Notice how they automatically try to smear someone that disagrees with them? They just HAD to throw in "...and unwed mother", as if to point out that her marital status somehow makes her unworthy of having an opinion on gay marriage.
Once again the liberal media tries to shut down free speech when it is a conservative who is speaking. And once again they do it in an underhanded way.
The non-news article went on to post several tweets by liberal morons all insulting Bristol Palin personally, rather than debate her position. Again, typical of the idiots on the left - they know their arguments have no merit so they attack their opponents with personal slurs and smears.
It's like when that moron Howard Dean says Republicans are stupid, hate women, hate gays and are racist etc. Well, I am a Republican. With an I.Q. that would dwarf any number he could probably count to I am not stupid. Holding a 4.0 GPA through 7 years of college I am not ignorant. I disapprove of gay MARRIAGE but have several gay friends, so I don't "hate gays" and I'm not homophobic. I simply disagree as to whether they should marry. I do not think they should be ostracized for their lifestyle - they should have all the same rights as married couples. But not MARRIAGE, because I believe that institution is a CHURCH function, not a state function. And I certainly do not hate women - my mother was a woman. So is my wife. And my daughter. Love 'em all. And racist? That's a joke! I married a Penobscot Indian and many of my closest friends are minorities.
[SIDE NOTE] Did you notice that in 2004 the Democrats had Howard Dean and John Edwards as their choices for president? That says it all!
It's far-left lunatics like Howard Dean and the liberal media who are feeding the hatred and division we now see in America. And President Obama, in lock-step with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is leading them with his "war on women", "war on wealth", "war on Arizona", "war on non-union shops", "war on Catholics", "war on Republicans", "war on straight marriage" etc. The only people he has not actively divided are the far-left liberals who support him and the Muslim Brotherhood (a terrorist organization) that he invited to the White House.
I say Bristol Palin has every right to express her opinion without being subjected to smears, slurs and personal insults. And it is high time sane and reasonable people of both parties should take the far-left and far-right haters to task, and shut them down. Shun them. Ostracize them. Call them out. We do not need their vitriol. And we certainly do not need a President who not only encourages them, but leads them.
/
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
When Is A "Right" Not A Right?
I am getting SO sick of the progressive/socialist/liberal jerks who keep trying to convince us that everything is a "right". It's not. MOST of the things they call for are PRIVILEGES, not rights.
By definition, a right is something EVERY person is born with, and the right is endowed by the Creator. It cannot be taken away, it cannot be licensed, it cannot be charged for. A privilege, on the other hand, is not automatic, we are not born with it, it is not granted by God, it can be revoked, it can be licensed and can be charged for.
The right to bear arms is a right. But driving a car is a privilege. If it were a right, the government could not keep blind people from driving, and could not revoke your license. In fact, if it were a right you would not even need a license.
So, when liberals try to con us into believing birth control is a right, they are what I like to call - WRONG! And when they say marriage is a right - WRONG! It is licensed, regulated, charged for and not everyone can marry whom they wish - like those who want multiple wives, or who want to marry a sheep.
Every time a liberal uses the term "right" you can be pretty certain they are talking about a privilege, not a right. And when they DO mention a right that is, in fact, a right (like the right to bear arms), they are probably trying to take that right away from us.
So, regadless of which side you may be on concerning gay marriage, understand this one thing - IT IS NOT A RIGHT. Never has been, and never will be.
After all, if it were a right, every person could DEMAND to marry. So, what if a guy cannot find a mate - is the government obligated to order some hapless woman to marry him, simply because he insists on exercising his "right"?
Not hardly.
/
By definition, a right is something EVERY person is born with, and the right is endowed by the Creator. It cannot be taken away, it cannot be licensed, it cannot be charged for. A privilege, on the other hand, is not automatic, we are not born with it, it is not granted by God, it can be revoked, it can be licensed and can be charged for.
The right to bear arms is a right. But driving a car is a privilege. If it were a right, the government could not keep blind people from driving, and could not revoke your license. In fact, if it were a right you would not even need a license.
So, when liberals try to con us into believing birth control is a right, they are what I like to call - WRONG! And when they say marriage is a right - WRONG! It is licensed, regulated, charged for and not everyone can marry whom they wish - like those who want multiple wives, or who want to marry a sheep.
Every time a liberal uses the term "right" you can be pretty certain they are talking about a privilege, not a right. And when they DO mention a right that is, in fact, a right (like the right to bear arms), they are probably trying to take that right away from us.
So, regadless of which side you may be on concerning gay marriage, understand this one thing - IT IS NOT A RIGHT. Never has been, and never will be.
After all, if it were a right, every person could DEMAND to marry. So, what if a guy cannot find a mate - is the government obligated to order some hapless woman to marry him, simply because he insists on exercising his "right"?
Not hardly.
/
Friday, May 4, 2012
Phony Crisis Of Chinese Dissident
I'm sure our State Department and the Obama administration will strut around having gotten the Chinese dissident, Chen, a ride to America. But the entire crisis was likely as phony as a $3 bill.
Think about it - the guy is blind, but managed to sneak past his guards, swim across a river and gain entrance to the U.S. Embassy. Blind! Yes, a woman did help him, but it is still quite a feat. And the Chinese arrested the woman - then released her! How much of a crisis could it have been?
Then Secretary Clinton steps in, talks him into LEAVING the embassy and go to a hospital, where he is once again at the mercy of the Chinese government. Strangely, nothing happens. And the next thing we know, Chen is accepted for a fellowship in the U.S. and China gives him the green light, without much fuss!
Astounding - ***IF*** it were really a crisis.
But consider - the last thing China wants is for Romney to be president. They much prefer the groveling Obama, whom they can manipulate. So I think this "crisis" was artificially created in an effort to make a hero out of Obama for having "saved" a dissident who was never at risk in the first place.
Just sayin'...
/
Think about it - the guy is blind, but managed to sneak past his guards, swim across a river and gain entrance to the U.S. Embassy. Blind! Yes, a woman did help him, but it is still quite a feat. And the Chinese arrested the woman - then released her! How much of a crisis could it have been?
Then Secretary Clinton steps in, talks him into LEAVING the embassy and go to a hospital, where he is once again at the mercy of the Chinese government. Strangely, nothing happens. And the next thing we know, Chen is accepted for a fellowship in the U.S. and China gives him the green light, without much fuss!
Astounding - ***IF*** it were really a crisis.
But consider - the last thing China wants is for Romney to be president. They much prefer the groveling Obama, whom they can manipulate. So I think this "crisis" was artificially created in an effort to make a hero out of Obama for having "saved" a dissident who was never at risk in the first place.
Just sayin'...
/
Why The World Will Not End In 2012
A new poll indicates a whopping 10% of the population believes the world will end this year.
As most of you know, I am a "Doomsday Prepper", and have been long before it was popular. But I prepare not for Doomsday - I prepare for the natural and man-made catastrophes that afflict the world periodically, such as the pandemic of 1918 that killed 60 million people.
That said, I cannot believe the world will end this year, and here's why:
1) Many of the events that are supposed to precede the end have not transpired. For example, the Jews have not taken back the Temple on the Mount from the Islamists.
2) The Bible says no one will know when the end will come - He's gonna surprise us. Since so many think it will be this year, that can only mean it will NOT be this year.
That said...
While I do not see "Doomsday" rearing its ugly butt this year, that does not mean we will not face a different catastrophe of lesser, but still vast proportions.
And that is why I prepare.
/
As most of you know, I am a "Doomsday Prepper", and have been long before it was popular. But I prepare not for Doomsday - I prepare for the natural and man-made catastrophes that afflict the world periodically, such as the pandemic of 1918 that killed 60 million people.
That said, I cannot believe the world will end this year, and here's why:
1) Many of the events that are supposed to precede the end have not transpired. For example, the Jews have not taken back the Temple on the Mount from the Islamists.
2) The Bible says no one will know when the end will come - He's gonna surprise us. Since so many think it will be this year, that can only mean it will NOT be this year.
That said...
While I do not see "Doomsday" rearing its ugly butt this year, that does not mean we will not face a different catastrophe of lesser, but still vast proportions.
And that is why I prepare.
/
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Emperor Has No Clothes
Just like in the parable about the Emperor who had no clothes, liberal elitists just cannot help themselves - all it takes is for one of them to say something is great and they all jump on board, for fear of being thought of as a fool if they don't "see" what the other guy sees. In doing so, they ARE fools.
Case in point: Edvard Munch's "The Scream" sold at auction Wednesday night in New York for $119.9 million bucks.
Any sane person who has seen that childish piece of crap would wonder in awe at the fools who believe the Emperor is wearing regal clothes just because others have been conned into believing it. They all KNOW a two-year old can paint better, but would never admit it for fear of being ostracized by their peers - the elitists in their Ivory Towers.
I would bet a year's salary that if Barbra Streisand were to herald "climate change" as a GOOD thing, every liberal elitist in the country would jump on board, and the New Yorker, Time and Newsweek would all be touting the wonderful benefits of climate change.
/
Case in point: Edvard Munch's "The Scream" sold at auction Wednesday night in New York for $119.9 million bucks.
Any sane person who has seen that childish piece of crap would wonder in awe at the fools who believe the Emperor is wearing regal clothes just because others have been conned into believing it. They all KNOW a two-year old can paint better, but would never admit it for fear of being ostracized by their peers - the elitists in their Ivory Towers.
I would bet a year's salary that if Barbra Streisand were to herald "climate change" as a GOOD thing, every liberal elitist in the country would jump on board, and the New Yorker, Time and Newsweek would all be touting the wonderful benefits of climate change.
/
Warren Can't Be Native American
Elizabeth Warren, Democrat candidate for senate from MA wrote on her resume for a professorship at Harvard that she was Native American. Being a minority, she was given preference and cut in front of the line to get the job. The problem lies in the fact that Warren does not have a drop of Native American blood. Maybe she thought she was an Indian if she drives a Cherokee.
The first give-away - Warren cannot be Native American because Native Americans abhor lying.
I hope the good folks of Massachusetts have enough sense to not vote for a liar and a cheat - we have too many in Washington already.
/
The first give-away - Warren cannot be Native American because Native Americans abhor lying.
I hope the good folks of Massachusetts have enough sense to not vote for a liar and a cheat - we have too many in Washington already.
/
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Proof that liberals are not bright
OK, you know I am not a "fan" of Huffington Post. Here is just one very clear reason why --- a story today about the Democrat governor of West Virginia not very pleased with Obama, nor is WV's democrat senator Manchin. Both good men, by the way. Just belong to the wrong party.
Anyway, here is a comment from a "HuffPost Super User" with 1575 HuffPost "Fans":
"HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Garyatty10
Attorney.CPA- Debunking GOP Myths . 1575 Fans
"West Virginia is in reality another welfare red state. According to the Tax Foundation WV pays an average of 8,800 in federal taxes per person. They receive 16,400 in federal spending per person. Only Missisippi is lower in math and science education.
The pattern is clear, if you want to be an illiterate, uneducated state dependent on the federal government, be conservative. "
I don't like bursting anyone's bubble, but when it is a liberal delusion, I'm happy to do it. In case Mr. "Garyatty10" missed it, WV is not exactly a red state. They have and have had Democrat governors and senators for quite awhile. Perhaps he "forgot" that the longest, oldest senator was Senator Byrd - Democrat and KKK leader. Yet this delusional liberal whose only purpose in life is to spread what he KNOWS are lies, says WV problems are caused by conservatives. In fact, the ONLY reason WV shows up as a "red state" is not because they are overrun with conservatives, but simply because they voted for McCain instead of Obama - because Obama threatened in his campaign to shut down coal, which is the mainstay of the WV economy. The fact remains that otherwise, they vote Democrat - their governor, past governor, senators...
So, Garyatty10, here's the truth, in your own words - "if you want to be an illiterate, uneducated state dependent on the federal government, be"... LIBERAL. You and the 1575 other idiots who think you are great can wallow in shame, not to mention your own ignorance.
/
Anyway, here is a comment from a "HuffPost Super User" with 1575 HuffPost "Fans":
"HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Garyatty10
Attorney.CPA- Debunking GOP Myths . 1575 Fans
"West Virginia is in reality another welfare red state. According to the Tax Foundation WV pays an average of 8,800 in federal taxes per person. They receive 16,400 in federal spending per person. Only Missisippi is lower in math and science education.
The pattern is clear, if you want to be an illiterate, uneducated state dependent on the federal government, be conservative. "
I don't like bursting anyone's bubble, but when it is a liberal delusion, I'm happy to do it. In case Mr. "Garyatty10" missed it, WV is not exactly a red state. They have and have had Democrat governors and senators for quite awhile. Perhaps he "forgot" that the longest, oldest senator was Senator Byrd - Democrat and KKK leader. Yet this delusional liberal whose only purpose in life is to spread what he KNOWS are lies, says WV problems are caused by conservatives. In fact, the ONLY reason WV shows up as a "red state" is not because they are overrun with conservatives, but simply because they voted for McCain instead of Obama - because Obama threatened in his campaign to shut down coal, which is the mainstay of the WV economy. The fact remains that otherwise, they vote Democrat - their governor, past governor, senators...
So, Garyatty10, here's the truth, in your own words - "if you want to be an illiterate, uneducated state dependent on the federal government, be"... LIBERAL. You and the 1575 other idiots who think you are great can wallow in shame, not to mention your own ignorance.
/
News you WON'T Find On HuffPost/AOL
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).
/
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).
/
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)