After watching the Republican Convention (which, by the way, they said they did not watch), the biggest complaint the Obama campaign has is that Romney failed as a leader because he never mentioned the war in Afghanistan or what he would do about it.
Pardon me for stating the obvious, but that is Obama's war. He was the one who said in 2008 it was a just war that needed to be fought. In addition, he has already ordered that the troops leave by a certain date. It has already been decided.
So, tell me, Mr. Obama - exactly what should Romney have said about the war? And exactly what would you expect him to do about it, since it is already a "done deal" by your own hand?
Frankly, you should feel lucky he did not mention Afghanistan. For if he had, he would have had to remind people that you wanted to fight the war, you spent a trillion bucks on it, and you already decided how and when it would end.
So, what would you have had Romney say, Mr. President? That you were wrong?
/
Friday, August 31, 2012
Liberals Do Not Understand Purpose of A Convention
Some hack named Fineman at Huffington Post wrote an article stating that it's not what is said at a convention, but what is NOT said that counts. [Ed. note: I hope he feels the same when the Democrat convention makes no reference to the high unemployment rate, escalating $16T deficit, Solyndra and all the other Obama failures]
Among Fineman's "observations are that the following were missing. Each is followed by my own observation:
1. "Social" issues. In 1992, a rudderless Bush One reelection campaign turned the GOP convention over to the abortion/traditional family crowd. It was a disaster. Republicans ever since have tried to tone it down, with mixed success. In Tampa, there has been barely a mention of those issues. Even Mike Huckabee toned it down -- and did not mention his good friend Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri. No reference to gay marriage or traditional marriage. Nearly no mention of abortion.
[REPLY] Het ta break this to ya, Fineman, but those are not the issues that most Americans are absorbed by today. Today they want to know what would be done on the economy and jobs. Nor was it necessary - everyone already knows where the GOP stands on social issues. The purpose of a convention is two-fold - nominate a candidate, and tell folks what they DON'T yet know about the candidate.
2. Sarah Palin. Even Fox TV banned her for one night of the convention, a remarkable editorial coincidence.
[REPLY] No, they did not "ban" her. As was clearly stated by both FOX and Palin, one entire night of the convention was "erased" due to hurricane Isaac. Therefore, all scheduled interviews also had to be canceled. But Palin has been prominently featured on FOX on each of the three remaining days of the convention.
3. Romneycare. Even though Mitt brags about it selectively on the campaign trail, his health care program in Massachusetts has not received a mention here. The reason is obvious: He's running against Obamacare, which was modeled on his own. Wouldn't be prudent.
[REPLY] How about some facts, Fineman. Such as, RomneyCare is quite different from ObamaCare, which was 27,000 pages of new taxes and regulations. Romney actually CUT taxes. Also, what may be good for a single state may not be so good for the nation - each state has different needs. In MA, only 6% of the population was without insurance, so the cost to cover them would be a lot smaller.
4. The GOP's spending/budget record 2001-2008. During George W. Bush's presidency, more than $3 trillion was added to the debt. Paul Ryan voted for most of the measures that made up that total. In his speech on Wednesday, he made passing reference to the Bush spending, but not to his own role.
[REPLY] Guess you missed it, Fineman, but Republicans have always stated they did not approve of all Bush's spending habits. That said, much of that spending was a direct result of 9/11 - what did you expect? Also, America was not in economic trouble at the time - we had it to spend. But mostly you miss the REAL point - while Bush jacked the debt by $3T in 8 long years, Obama has jacked it more than $5T in just 3 short years. BIG difference.
5. Immigration. The divisive issue is verboten here and for good reason: Romney is way behind among Hispanics, disastrously so. He is 5 percentage points behind in Florida, and Nevada and Colorado are in danger, too. I saw Sheriff Joe Arpaio on the floor the other night, but no one was giving him high fives and he was nowhere near the stage.
[REPLY] Immigration is not the issue of the day. Time enough for that in the campaign. Again, bonehead, the purpose of a convention is to tell folks what they do not yet know about a candidate. It is not a 3 day political ad.
6. Lack of diversity. There have been plenty of persons of color at the podium, nearly as many as there are in the hall. It is, frankly, a white-on-white crowd. And the GOP, for better or worse, does not seem to mind. It's not that they don't want more diversity; they just aren't for the kind of methodical outreach that accelerates it. They think their ideas are enough. At least that's the generous interpretation.
[REPLY] Even Fineman knows all are welcome. If more blacks show up at the Democrat convention, it is because most blacks are Democrat. It is not because Republicans don't want them. It's just that the Democrats have bought and paid for the minortities with their entitlements.
7. War in Afghanistan. Last night I watched a stirring and, at the same time, heartbreaking color guard of amputee vets bring Old Glory on stage. That was about the only reminder of the war. Or the trillions that have been spent since 9/11.
[REPLY] Your memory seems to conveniently forget that it was Obama who said the Afghan war was just, and needed to be fought. And he has kept it going. And Obama has done his own trillion dollar spending on it. American security is not a party issue
8. Foreign policy. Except for Condi Rice's speech, and then only partially. And just one mention of Osama bin Laden, by Romney himself, for the obvious reason that President Obama got him and President Bush did not.
[REPLY] There were several pointed statements on foreign policy. But again, you seem to keep forgetting the purpose of a convention. All else is meat for the campaign, but not a convention.
9. The Bushes.Except for Jeb and a short video on the Georges.
[REPLY] The Bushes are not relevant to the purpose of the convention. Do you REALLY think Obama will feature - or even bring up - Jimmy Carter? The Bushes are yesterday, and everyone knows all they need to know about them. Romney, and the convention, are about today and tomorrow. While I understand liberals prefer living in the past, Republicans prefer to look to the future.
/
Among Fineman's "observations are that the following were missing. Each is followed by my own observation:
1. "Social" issues. In 1992, a rudderless Bush One reelection campaign turned the GOP convention over to the abortion/traditional family crowd. It was a disaster. Republicans ever since have tried to tone it down, with mixed success. In Tampa, there has been barely a mention of those issues. Even Mike Huckabee toned it down -- and did not mention his good friend Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri. No reference to gay marriage or traditional marriage. Nearly no mention of abortion.
[REPLY] Het ta break this to ya, Fineman, but those are not the issues that most Americans are absorbed by today. Today they want to know what would be done on the economy and jobs. Nor was it necessary - everyone already knows where the GOP stands on social issues. The purpose of a convention is two-fold - nominate a candidate, and tell folks what they DON'T yet know about the candidate.
2. Sarah Palin. Even Fox TV banned her for one night of the convention, a remarkable editorial coincidence.
[REPLY] No, they did not "ban" her. As was clearly stated by both FOX and Palin, one entire night of the convention was "erased" due to hurricane Isaac. Therefore, all scheduled interviews also had to be canceled. But Palin has been prominently featured on FOX on each of the three remaining days of the convention.
3. Romneycare. Even though Mitt brags about it selectively on the campaign trail, his health care program in Massachusetts has not received a mention here. The reason is obvious: He's running against Obamacare, which was modeled on his own. Wouldn't be prudent.
[REPLY] How about some facts, Fineman. Such as, RomneyCare is quite different from ObamaCare, which was 27,000 pages of new taxes and regulations. Romney actually CUT taxes. Also, what may be good for a single state may not be so good for the nation - each state has different needs. In MA, only 6% of the population was without insurance, so the cost to cover them would be a lot smaller.
4. The GOP's spending/budget record 2001-2008. During George W. Bush's presidency, more than $3 trillion was added to the debt. Paul Ryan voted for most of the measures that made up that total. In his speech on Wednesday, he made passing reference to the Bush spending, but not to his own role.
[REPLY] Guess you missed it, Fineman, but Republicans have always stated they did not approve of all Bush's spending habits. That said, much of that spending was a direct result of 9/11 - what did you expect? Also, America was not in economic trouble at the time - we had it to spend. But mostly you miss the REAL point - while Bush jacked the debt by $3T in 8 long years, Obama has jacked it more than $5T in just 3 short years. BIG difference.
5. Immigration. The divisive issue is verboten here and for good reason: Romney is way behind among Hispanics, disastrously so. He is 5 percentage points behind in Florida, and Nevada and Colorado are in danger, too. I saw Sheriff Joe Arpaio on the floor the other night, but no one was giving him high fives and he was nowhere near the stage.
[REPLY] Immigration is not the issue of the day. Time enough for that in the campaign. Again, bonehead, the purpose of a convention is to tell folks what they do not yet know about a candidate. It is not a 3 day political ad.
6. Lack of diversity. There have been plenty of persons of color at the podium, nearly as many as there are in the hall. It is, frankly, a white-on-white crowd. And the GOP, for better or worse, does not seem to mind. It's not that they don't want more diversity; they just aren't for the kind of methodical outreach that accelerates it. They think their ideas are enough. At least that's the generous interpretation.
[REPLY] Even Fineman knows all are welcome. If more blacks show up at the Democrat convention, it is because most blacks are Democrat. It is not because Republicans don't want them. It's just that the Democrats have bought and paid for the minortities with their entitlements.
7. War in Afghanistan. Last night I watched a stirring and, at the same time, heartbreaking color guard of amputee vets bring Old Glory on stage. That was about the only reminder of the war. Or the trillions that have been spent since 9/11.
[REPLY] Your memory seems to conveniently forget that it was Obama who said the Afghan war was just, and needed to be fought. And he has kept it going. And Obama has done his own trillion dollar spending on it. American security is not a party issue
8. Foreign policy. Except for Condi Rice's speech, and then only partially. And just one mention of Osama bin Laden, by Romney himself, for the obvious reason that President Obama got him and President Bush did not.
[REPLY] There were several pointed statements on foreign policy. But again, you seem to keep forgetting the purpose of a convention. All else is meat for the campaign, but not a convention.
9. The Bushes.Except for Jeb and a short video on the Georges.
[REPLY] The Bushes are not relevant to the purpose of the convention. Do you REALLY think Obama will feature - or even bring up - Jimmy Carter? The Bushes are yesterday, and everyone knows all they need to know about them. Romney, and the convention, are about today and tomorrow. While I understand liberals prefer living in the past, Republicans prefer to look to the future.
/
Thursday, August 30, 2012
The Civil Rights Issue of the 21st Century
It's not equal rights. It's not entitlements. It's not any of the things the Democratic party tries to tell us it is. Condi Rice hit the nail on the head - the Civil Rights issue of the day is equal educational opportunities for minorities.
It's nice to think that adding millions of jobs will solve our problems. But if a student gets a lousy education because their zip code is a slum, what kind of job could he get? Flipping burgers? Cashiering at 7-11?
What America needs is to provide families with school choice. It creates competition among schools, and competition always makes things better - because those that do not get better will disappear.
For years the Republican party has fought tooth and nail for school choice. But in EVERY instance, their efforts were blocked by the Democrats. While the Democrats like to say they are the party of the minorities, the real truth, as we all know, is that they are the party of unions. Union money gets Democrats elected. And the Teacher's Union does not want school choice.
Bear in mind, the job of the unions is to protects its members. And the members of the Teacher's Union are - TEACHERS. Not the students. The unions don't give a damn about the students as long as the teachers get great benefits, and protection from being fired, no matter how bad they may be.
The Democrats fight school choice because if they don't, the union bucks stop flowing. Simple.
If America is to provide all students, regardless of their zip code or ethnic heritage, with equal opportunity for a good education, that will only happen if we elect Republicans - they are not in bed with the unions.
Jeb Bush did it in Florida, and Florida now ranks 4th in academic performance among minorities. It had been last place before Bush became Governor. And Christi is working on education in NJ, and several other Republican governors across the country.
Contrary to what the Democrats tell folks, it was Republicans who pushed for, and passed, the Civil Rights act. And it is Republicans who are pushing for school choice so minorities and the poor can have the same opportunities as everyone else. And when the day comes that Republicans get the chance to make school choice the law of the land, you can bet your butt that Democrats will take credit for that, too.
/
It's nice to think that adding millions of jobs will solve our problems. But if a student gets a lousy education because their zip code is a slum, what kind of job could he get? Flipping burgers? Cashiering at 7-11?
What America needs is to provide families with school choice. It creates competition among schools, and competition always makes things better - because those that do not get better will disappear.
For years the Republican party has fought tooth and nail for school choice. But in EVERY instance, their efforts were blocked by the Democrats. While the Democrats like to say they are the party of the minorities, the real truth, as we all know, is that they are the party of unions. Union money gets Democrats elected. And the Teacher's Union does not want school choice.
Bear in mind, the job of the unions is to protects its members. And the members of the Teacher's Union are - TEACHERS. Not the students. The unions don't give a damn about the students as long as the teachers get great benefits, and protection from being fired, no matter how bad they may be.
The Democrats fight school choice because if they don't, the union bucks stop flowing. Simple.
If America is to provide all students, regardless of their zip code or ethnic heritage, with equal opportunity for a good education, that will only happen if we elect Republicans - they are not in bed with the unions.
Jeb Bush did it in Florida, and Florida now ranks 4th in academic performance among minorities. It had been last place before Bush became Governor. And Christi is working on education in NJ, and several other Republican governors across the country.
Contrary to what the Democrats tell folks, it was Republicans who pushed for, and passed, the Civil Rights act. And it is Republicans who are pushing for school choice so minorities and the poor can have the same opportunities as everyone else. And when the day comes that Republicans get the chance to make school choice the law of the land, you can bet your butt that Democrats will take credit for that, too.
/
HuffPost Lies About Ryan's Facts
It seems (not surprisingly) that HuffPost and other liberal media have found several "blatant lies" in Ryan's speech last night. Unfortunately for them, those "lies" are not lies at all
Fact according to HuffPost: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling
Reality: The credit agencies do not rate according to perceived threats - only to actual circumstances that exist. S&P downgraded us because the policies of Obama led America to instability. These are the exact words from S&P: "The downgrade reflects our opinion that the plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics." In other words, it had nothing to do with threats to not raise the debt ceiling - that had already been raised before S&P made that decision on August 5, 2011. So, it is HuffingtonPost that is lying, not Ryan.
Fact according to HuffPost: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush
Reality: Ryan did not blame Obama for the shutdown. Ryan said Obama did not keep it open after having promised to do so. It was SLATED to close under Bush, but was closed 12/23/08. Ryan said, and this is factual, that Obama had told the Janesville workers in February 2008 that he would keep the plant open for "another 100 years" with government help if he were elected. He did not, so he lied to the voters of Janesville to get their votes. So not only is HuffPost lying, so did Obama. In fact, Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant but his request fell on deaf ears.
Fact according to HuffPost: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit
for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period.
Reality: Never allowing the truth to get in the way, this is what liberals want you to believe. But facts are funny things - they remain facts. Obama did, indeed, state unequivically that "you didn't build that", that the government helped. The statement indicates if government did not help, businesses could never succeed. Any way you cut it, Obama said the credit goes to government
Fact according to HuffPost: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of
Medicare, that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan
Reality: Not even close to being true.The $716B Obama took from Medicare was taken regardless of any perceived or unproven "savings" in reimbursement rates. And it doesn't matter - it still results in $716B OUT of Medicare and into ObamaCare. And savings from reimbursements cannot possibly save "out-of-pocket" costs - if the government cuts rates further, doctors and hospitals will no longer accept Medicare patients. Medicare already underpays them. In other words, you may have a pretty little Medicare card, but if no one accepts it, you don't get any care.
/
Fact according to HuffPost: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling
Reality: The credit agencies do not rate according to perceived threats - only to actual circumstances that exist. S&P downgraded us because the policies of Obama led America to instability. These are the exact words from S&P: "The downgrade reflects our opinion that the plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics." In other words, it had nothing to do with threats to not raise the debt ceiling - that had already been raised before S&P made that decision on August 5, 2011. So, it is HuffingtonPost that is lying, not Ryan.
Fact according to HuffPost: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush
Reality: Ryan did not blame Obama for the shutdown. Ryan said Obama did not keep it open after having promised to do so. It was SLATED to close under Bush, but was closed 12/23/08. Ryan said, and this is factual, that Obama had told the Janesville workers in February 2008 that he would keep the plant open for "another 100 years" with government help if he were elected. He did not, so he lied to the voters of Janesville to get their votes. So not only is HuffPost lying, so did Obama. In fact, Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant but his request fell on deaf ears.
Fact according to HuffPost: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit
for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period.
Reality: Never allowing the truth to get in the way, this is what liberals want you to believe. But facts are funny things - they remain facts. Obama did, indeed, state unequivically that "you didn't build that", that the government helped. The statement indicates if government did not help, businesses could never succeed. Any way you cut it, Obama said the credit goes to government
Fact according to HuffPost: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of
Medicare, that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan
Reality: Not even close to being true.The $716B Obama took from Medicare was taken regardless of any perceived or unproven "savings" in reimbursement rates. And it doesn't matter - it still results in $716B OUT of Medicare and into ObamaCare. And savings from reimbursements cannot possibly save "out-of-pocket" costs - if the government cuts rates further, doctors and hospitals will no longer accept Medicare patients. Medicare already underpays them. In other words, you may have a pretty little Medicare card, but if no one accepts it, you don't get any care.
/
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Yahoo's David Chalian Fired Over Romney Remark
Yahoo fired one of its bureau chiefs for a remark that he made on an open mic. During the broadcast, Chalian can be heard saying that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his wife Ann were "not concerned at all" and "happy to have a party with black people drowning."
It seems that according to liberals like Chalian, the entire world should stop what it is doing whenever a storm comes around somewhere. It also appears Chalian and his ilk believe that Hurricane Isaac is only drowning black people. I guess they are not educated enough to know a large percentage of the population in that area is white. But, hey, let's not let facts get in the way of their bigotry.
But the real story is behind the scenes at HuffPost (again), where the liberals were making the most outrageous and hateful comments. The level of ignorance, dishonesty and downright stupidy is amazing. Here are just a few, for your amusement. As usual, I have added my response to each of these moronic lemmings...
eenp718
"The issue here is he was telling the truth and it's supposed to not be said out-loud. It's the same issue that the "black man" always dies first in these new action movies. It's put in the story-line so it's an acceptable practice and it shows in this political campaign. It's alright to demean the black, lie about the black, for he's not supposed to have a job for the white-man. Even when he has corrected their failure. When racism is eliminated, then men won't get fired for this type of ignorance. " [REPLY - it's hard to respond to a rant that has no substance, or truth, for that matter. The insinuation here is that Republicans are racist. Sane people know that is not true. It was a Republican that freed the slaves. And Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act that was opposed by, and even filibustered by Democrats. Republicans have elected numerous African Americans to high office, and many others, like Condi Rice, have been appointed to cabinet positions.]
Mrs Norman
"It's true!!!!" [REPLY - no, it is not, and you know it. And if you do not know it, then you are ignorant.]
hifie
"Tough when the truth hits the air waves. Then you get fired" [REPLY - another lib lemming who believes the Democrat lie that Republicans are racist. Tell that to Condi Rice, Allen West, or any number of other prominent black Republicans.The true racists are people like this clown who try to label others as racist]
gsports97
"The facts are the facts, Jack, and the RNC has been anti black for many years. They parade a few token blacks out at each election to make the dum think there not anti black but just look at the states that are almost all repubilcan where poor education ( some counties have up to 40% of people who can not read or write ) and such low paying jobs if there are any that most of them have to go on welfare." [REPLY - talk about extreme ignorance and a total lack of knowledge! First, they are NOT "facts". You just wish they were. And the RNC cannot very well be anti-black, since the previous elected RNC chairperson was Michael Steele, a BLACK man. And you call others dumb when you cannot even spell "dumb". And of the red "Republican" states, they have the lowest unemployment (7 of 10) and highest test scores. Get a clue.]
interlude
"Well, is it true? They drowned Cain politically. Why are there not any black Republican? Seems like serious self-image problems. The same can be said of women. They must like being oppressed and controlled." [REPLY - It's amazing how many liberals are so willing to believe lies propagated by their leaders. No one drowned Cain, politically - he just wasn't up to the job. Nor were several WHITE candidates, Bubba! Or do you think we also drowned Gingrich, Pawlenty, Santorum, Bachmann... And there are many black Republicans - West, Rice, Cain and many, many others.Same with women - Ingraham, Colter, Palin, several sitting governors, Condi Rice... Why do you insist on spreading lies that you KNOW are lies?]
mykel1955
"rehire the man what he said was the truth!" [REPLY - You obviously would not know the truth if it walked up and slapped you in the face.]
Notwithouthope
"Why apologize? The truth is the truth. Unless you are rich and white the Republican party doesn't care. If you are a female, minority or poor they don't care...there's no money in it! ' [REPLY - you really need a dose of education. 11 of the 15 wealthiest people are DEMOCRATS. 7 of the 10 wealthiest people in Congress are DEMOCRATS. And it is Republicans that keep trying to LIFT minorities out of poverty while Democrats keep trying to keep them poor and under their thumb. That's what welfare reform was all about, and the stats show it worked. Dems give them a hand OUT. Repubs give them a hand UP. And are you REALLY so stupid that you don't realize Republicans have wives, mothers, sisters and daughters? Do you think we do not care about them? If you really think that, then your I.Q. isn't even in double digits. It is scary to think that idiots like you can actually vote (assuming someone with a brain can show you how)]
/
It seems that according to liberals like Chalian, the entire world should stop what it is doing whenever a storm comes around somewhere. It also appears Chalian and his ilk believe that Hurricane Isaac is only drowning black people. I guess they are not educated enough to know a large percentage of the population in that area is white. But, hey, let's not let facts get in the way of their bigotry.
But the real story is behind the scenes at HuffPost (again), where the liberals were making the most outrageous and hateful comments. The level of ignorance, dishonesty and downright stupidy is amazing. Here are just a few, for your amusement. As usual, I have added my response to each of these moronic lemmings...
eenp718
"The issue here is he was telling the truth and it's supposed to not be said out-loud. It's the same issue that the "black man" always dies first in these new action movies. It's put in the story-line so it's an acceptable practice and it shows in this political campaign. It's alright to demean the black, lie about the black, for he's not supposed to have a job for the white-man. Even when he has corrected their failure. When racism is eliminated, then men won't get fired for this type of ignorance. " [REPLY - it's hard to respond to a rant that has no substance, or truth, for that matter. The insinuation here is that Republicans are racist. Sane people know that is not true. It was a Republican that freed the slaves. And Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act that was opposed by, and even filibustered by Democrats. Republicans have elected numerous African Americans to high office, and many others, like Condi Rice, have been appointed to cabinet positions.]
Mrs Norman
"It's true!!!!" [REPLY - no, it is not, and you know it. And if you do not know it, then you are ignorant.]
hifie
"Tough when the truth hits the air waves. Then you get fired" [REPLY - another lib lemming who believes the Democrat lie that Republicans are racist. Tell that to Condi Rice, Allen West, or any number of other prominent black Republicans.The true racists are people like this clown who try to label others as racist]
gsports97
"The facts are the facts, Jack, and the RNC has been anti black for many years. They parade a few token blacks out at each election to make the dum think there not anti black but just look at the states that are almost all repubilcan where poor education ( some counties have up to 40% of people who can not read or write ) and such low paying jobs if there are any that most of them have to go on welfare." [REPLY - talk about extreme ignorance and a total lack of knowledge! First, they are NOT "facts". You just wish they were. And the RNC cannot very well be anti-black, since the previous elected RNC chairperson was Michael Steele, a BLACK man. And you call others dumb when you cannot even spell "dumb". And of the red "Republican" states, they have the lowest unemployment (7 of 10) and highest test scores. Get a clue.]
interlude
"Well, is it true? They drowned Cain politically. Why are there not any black Republican? Seems like serious self-image problems. The same can be said of women. They must like being oppressed and controlled." [REPLY - It's amazing how many liberals are so willing to believe lies propagated by their leaders. No one drowned Cain, politically - he just wasn't up to the job. Nor were several WHITE candidates, Bubba! Or do you think we also drowned Gingrich, Pawlenty, Santorum, Bachmann... And there are many black Republicans - West, Rice, Cain and many, many others.Same with women - Ingraham, Colter, Palin, several sitting governors, Condi Rice... Why do you insist on spreading lies that you KNOW are lies?]
mykel1955
"rehire the man what he said was the truth!" [REPLY - You obviously would not know the truth if it walked up and slapped you in the face.]
Notwithouthope
"Why apologize? The truth is the truth. Unless you are rich and white the Republican party doesn't care. If you are a female, minority or poor they don't care...there's no money in it! ' [REPLY - you really need a dose of education. 11 of the 15 wealthiest people are DEMOCRATS. 7 of the 10 wealthiest people in Congress are DEMOCRATS. And it is Republicans that keep trying to LIFT minorities out of poverty while Democrats keep trying to keep them poor and under their thumb. That's what welfare reform was all about, and the stats show it worked. Dems give them a hand OUT. Repubs give them a hand UP. And are you REALLY so stupid that you don't realize Republicans have wives, mothers, sisters and daughters? Do you think we do not care about them? If you really think that, then your I.Q. isn't even in double digits. It is scary to think that idiots like you can actually vote (assuming someone with a brain can show you how)]
/
Liberals Say RNC Speaker Did NOT "Build it on his own"
At the RNC convention with the theme "We DID Build It", Phil Archuletta, the owner of P&M Signs in New Mexico, spoke about building his business.
But leave it to the liberals (like HuffPost/AOL) to claim he did NOT build his business "without government help."
According to government data, Archuletta saw over $340,000 in federal contracts in 2010, and has taken $716,500 in loans guaranteed by the government.
Now here is where the liberals just don't seem to get it - a federal contract is not a gift, nor is it "government help." The guy is in business, the government hired him because he won the bid and they paid him for work that he did, just like any other customer. No more, no less. That does not constitute "government help." It constitutes getting paid for services rendered. Archuletta helped the government by providing his services, not vice versa.
As for "loan guaranteed by the government - those are not loans FROM the government. The government did not give him a cent. They simply guaranteed the loan by assuring the bank that if he should default, THEN the government would make good on the loan.
But that is not even the whole of it. According to HuffPost's government sources, Archuletta has received government contracts for ten years. But he started his business in 1972 - that's FORTY YEARS AGO. So, HuffPost, he DID build it himself. It was built three decades before he started getting fed contracts.
Liberals are getting so insane. To them, if the government does not put you against a wall and shoot you, then they have helped you by letting you live.
But leave it to the liberals (like HuffPost/AOL) to claim he did NOT build his business "without government help."
According to government data, Archuletta saw over $340,000 in federal contracts in 2010, and has taken $716,500 in loans guaranteed by the government.
Now here is where the liberals just don't seem to get it - a federal contract is not a gift, nor is it "government help." The guy is in business, the government hired him because he won the bid and they paid him for work that he did, just like any other customer. No more, no less. That does not constitute "government help." It constitutes getting paid for services rendered. Archuletta helped the government by providing his services, not vice versa.
As for "loan guaranteed by the government - those are not loans FROM the government. The government did not give him a cent. They simply guaranteed the loan by assuring the bank that if he should default, THEN the government would make good on the loan.
But that is not even the whole of it. According to HuffPost's government sources, Archuletta has received government contracts for ten years. But he started his business in 1972 - that's FORTY YEARS AGO. So, HuffPost, he DID build it himself. It was built three decades before he started getting fed contracts.
Liberals are getting so insane. To them, if the government does not put you against a wall and shoot you, then they have helped you by letting you live.
Liberal Lemmings - Incapable Of Independent Thought
So HuffPost/AOL & other liberal media posts a story about two morons at the Republican Convention who threw nuts at a black CNN camerawoman and said, "This is how we feed animals". And right away the left, frothing at the mouth, are quick to point out that ALL Republicans are like that.
What they never even bother to ask is WHO were these people? Were they even Republicans, or were they liberal shills hired to do precisely this, to taint the Republican party at its own convention?
Since the mindless lemmings who follow their liberal leaders will not ask the all important question, I will...
Would ANY republican - even a hard-core racist one - jeopardize the election by doing something so obviously racist, that they KNOW will get reported (note vthey purposely CHOSE a CNN team), and they KNOW will make Republicans look bad, and they KNOW would hurt Republican chances of winning? Why would they do that? There is only ONE reason why a person would choose a black CNN person to insult - they WANT it reported, which means they WANT Republicans to get a "black eye". Which means - um, they were not Republicans.
Not even the dumbest person, Republican or Democrat, would do that. In fact, I would go so far as to say even Joe Biden would not say or do something that dumb.
No, those clowns were not Republicans. They were there for the express purpose of doing the Republican party harm. Liberal shills.
After all, think about this - TWO people doing the same inappropriate, bone-headed thing. Ask yourself - if the person next to you should do something like that, would you also do it just because he did? Not even if he were your brother. The likelihood that two people would do the same thing is almost nil UNLESS it was staged.
So, to all the liberal lemmings out there who cannot think for yourselves, let me postulate something for you to ponder - if two conservatives were to attend the Democratic Convention, and they were to disparage a female FOX reporter by throwing condoms at her, do you think it would be fair for all Democrats to be labeled as woman haters?
Duh!
Just once I wish liberals would actually stop long enough to actually THINK.
Yeah, right...
/
What they never even bother to ask is WHO were these people? Were they even Republicans, or were they liberal shills hired to do precisely this, to taint the Republican party at its own convention?
Since the mindless lemmings who follow their liberal leaders will not ask the all important question, I will...
Would ANY republican - even a hard-core racist one - jeopardize the election by doing something so obviously racist, that they KNOW will get reported (note vthey purposely CHOSE a CNN team), and they KNOW will make Republicans look bad, and they KNOW would hurt Republican chances of winning? Why would they do that? There is only ONE reason why a person would choose a black CNN person to insult - they WANT it reported, which means they WANT Republicans to get a "black eye". Which means - um, they were not Republicans.
Not even the dumbest person, Republican or Democrat, would do that. In fact, I would go so far as to say even Joe Biden would not say or do something that dumb.
No, those clowns were not Republicans. They were there for the express purpose of doing the Republican party harm. Liberal shills.
After all, think about this - TWO people doing the same inappropriate, bone-headed thing. Ask yourself - if the person next to you should do something like that, would you also do it just because he did? Not even if he were your brother. The likelihood that two people would do the same thing is almost nil UNLESS it was staged.
So, to all the liberal lemmings out there who cannot think for yourselves, let me postulate something for you to ponder - if two conservatives were to attend the Democratic Convention, and they were to disparage a female FOX reporter by throwing condoms at her, do you think it would be fair for all Democrats to be labeled as woman haters?
Duh!
Just once I wish liberals would actually stop long enough to actually THINK.
Yeah, right...
/
Ann Romney, Wife Extraordinaire
As I watched the much anticipated speech by Ann Romney at the Convention in Tampa, it brought back something my Dad always said - "Behind every great man there is a greater woman." Romney may have assets everywhere - Bahamas, Swiss accounts etc., but one thing is certain - his greatest, most valuable asset is the woman he wed 43 years ago. And he damn well knows it!
I suspect had he not married Ann, Mitt may not have gone quite as far. And I wonder, too, whether we nominated the right Romney...
/
I suspect had he not married Ann, Mitt may not have gone quite as far. And I wonder, too, whether we nominated the right Romney...
/
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
To Occupy Protestors - Try Occupying A Job
David Whitaker, a typical Occupy protestor in Tampa whined that he had nothing while a few people at the top had everything. What Mr. Whitaker and his ilk will never understand is WHY he is at the bottom while others reside at the top.
Whitaker wants it NOW. He doesn't want to earn it over a period of years. And he wants it EASY. He does not want to expend any effort to get ahead. What he does want to do is complain, and insist that others give him a free ride.
Whitaker thinks the rich were all born that way, or stole from others to get ahead.
Steve Jobs was not born with a silver spoon and he stole nothing. He got rich through hard work, sacrifice and years of busting his butt and providing products people were willing to pay for.
Henry Ford was born in poverty and never got past the 4th grade. But hard work, sacrifice and busting butt got him to the top.
Barbara Stanwick was a ragamuffin kid on the streets of New York, with no hope for anything better. But she was determined to have better, and after years of pushing herself and sacrificing, she made it.
Unless you win the lottery or a rich uncle dies, you have to pay your dues if you want to be on top. Those dues are hard work, sacrifice and investing all that you have into building a better future.
Whitaker doesn't have a clue. He wants what I have, but does not want to do what I had to do to get here.
I was born into a not-so-well-off family. With 6 brothers and two sisters, I was fortunate if I got hand-me-downs that still looked decent, or fit. I worked hard in school. I wanted to go to college but we did not have the money. I got a job in a foundry as a sweaty laborer. Instead of buying every stupid new toy or gizmo that hits the stores as kids do these days, I saved. No ordering out for pizza, no movies. I made years of sacrifices so I could afford night classes at the local college. And years later I got my first degree. With it, I got a better job as Director of Quality Assurance for a worldwide company. And with much better pay, I easily earned more degrees, and could finally order a pizza.
I then invested everything I had into starting my own business. And for years it was touch-and-go, more sacrifice and 18 hour workdays.
And it paid off. I made it to the coveted "1%".
And Whitaker, who never did a damned thing worthwhile in his worthless life, only sees what I have NOW and wants to take what I have simply because he thinks everyone should have the same, regardless of whether or not you earn it.
Here's a newsflash for all the Whitakers out there - you can have everything I have as soon as you do everything I did. The ONLY thing America owes you is the SAME OPPORTUNITY. The opportunity to work hard, sacrifice and invest yourself for years. If you do not want to do that, then you deserve what you have - NOTHING!
As for everything else - YOU owe it to yourself. I don't owe you anything at all.
/
Whitaker wants it NOW. He doesn't want to earn it over a period of years. And he wants it EASY. He does not want to expend any effort to get ahead. What he does want to do is complain, and insist that others give him a free ride.
Whitaker thinks the rich were all born that way, or stole from others to get ahead.
Steve Jobs was not born with a silver spoon and he stole nothing. He got rich through hard work, sacrifice and years of busting his butt and providing products people were willing to pay for.
Henry Ford was born in poverty and never got past the 4th grade. But hard work, sacrifice and busting butt got him to the top.
Barbara Stanwick was a ragamuffin kid on the streets of New York, with no hope for anything better. But she was determined to have better, and after years of pushing herself and sacrificing, she made it.
Unless you win the lottery or a rich uncle dies, you have to pay your dues if you want to be on top. Those dues are hard work, sacrifice and investing all that you have into building a better future.
Whitaker doesn't have a clue. He wants what I have, but does not want to do what I had to do to get here.
I was born into a not-so-well-off family. With 6 brothers and two sisters, I was fortunate if I got hand-me-downs that still looked decent, or fit. I worked hard in school. I wanted to go to college but we did not have the money. I got a job in a foundry as a sweaty laborer. Instead of buying every stupid new toy or gizmo that hits the stores as kids do these days, I saved. No ordering out for pizza, no movies. I made years of sacrifices so I could afford night classes at the local college. And years later I got my first degree. With it, I got a better job as Director of Quality Assurance for a worldwide company. And with much better pay, I easily earned more degrees, and could finally order a pizza.
I then invested everything I had into starting my own business. And for years it was touch-and-go, more sacrifice and 18 hour workdays.
And it paid off. I made it to the coveted "1%".
And Whitaker, who never did a damned thing worthwhile in his worthless life, only sees what I have NOW and wants to take what I have simply because he thinks everyone should have the same, regardless of whether or not you earn it.
Here's a newsflash for all the Whitakers out there - you can have everything I have as soon as you do everything I did. The ONLY thing America owes you is the SAME OPPORTUNITY. The opportunity to work hard, sacrifice and invest yourself for years. If you do not want to do that, then you deserve what you have - NOTHING!
As for everything else - YOU owe it to yourself. I don't owe you anything at all.
/
Denver Liberals Punish Small Catholic-Based Business
A small company called HERCULES has spent the last 50 years generously helping their community, and providing their employees with top-notch health insurance. So, the City Council decided to give them their prestigious Citizenship Award.
But then the Catholic-based company fought ObamaCare for trying to mandate that religious people must provide contraceptive, abortions etc. in their health plans.
And to the far-left lunatics on the Denver City Council, fighting ObamaCare and abortion is an unforgiveable sin, so they decided to revoke the award.
I'm sorry if this sounds old-fashioned, but if a person or company earns an award, they should get it, and everyone should keep the personal ideologies out of it.
It is absolutely disgusting that the Denver liberals abuse their power and authority (as all liberals do) to punish someone they disagree with. You rarely see conservatives do that. DENVER VOTERS TAKE NOTE: People like that do not deserve to hold positions of authority.
/
But then the Catholic-based company fought ObamaCare for trying to mandate that religious people must provide contraceptive, abortions etc. in their health plans.
And to the far-left lunatics on the Denver City Council, fighting ObamaCare and abortion is an unforgiveable sin, so they decided to revoke the award.
I'm sorry if this sounds old-fashioned, but if a person or company earns an award, they should get it, and everyone should keep the personal ideologies out of it.
It is absolutely disgusting that the Denver liberals abuse their power and authority (as all liberals do) to punish someone they disagree with. You rarely see conservatives do that. DENVER VOTERS TAKE NOTE: People like that do not deserve to hold positions of authority.
/
What Most Do Not Know About Mitt Romney
One of the moronic "Occupy" folks who protested in Tampa yesterday said that Romney is a multimillionaire and could never understand him because he never lived near the bottom.
Aside from the fact that anyone "on the bottom" deserves to be there because they failed to expend the effort to get ahead, here is a little known fact about Mr. Romney...
Yes, he inherited millions from his father. But he gave away every cent to charity. And when he first married Ann, they lived in a $75 basement apartment. There dining table was a fold-down ironing board. So yes, he does know what it is like. But unlike the dumbass Occupy idiot, he also knows what it is like to do what it takes to get ahead.
To that clown from Occupy I would say - get a job. Bust your butt. Work your way through college. Apply yourself and you, too, will get ahead. You will NOT get ahead by spending your time whining and moaning with the "woe is me" crap, and thinking anyone owes you a living. As my Dad used to say, "The world may owe you a living - but you have to work like Hell to collect."
Sidney Poitier and Barbara Stanwick both started out in the slums. They decided they wanted something better and they focused on getting ahead. I, myself, was a homeless person in 1990. I decided to do whatever I had to do to get on my feet and get ahead. I am now one of the 1%.
Very few of the 1% were born as 1%-ers. Most worked their butts off to get where they are. No one gave it to them. Mitt Romney did have it given to him, but he did not want it that way - he wanted to do it himself. And he did. That takes something that no Occupy person will ever have - character!
And by the way, Mr. "Occupy" - Barak Obama is ALSO a multimillionaire.
/
Aside from the fact that anyone "on the bottom" deserves to be there because they failed to expend the effort to get ahead, here is a little known fact about Mr. Romney...
Yes, he inherited millions from his father. But he gave away every cent to charity. And when he first married Ann, they lived in a $75 basement apartment. There dining table was a fold-down ironing board. So yes, he does know what it is like. But unlike the dumbass Occupy idiot, he also knows what it is like to do what it takes to get ahead.
To that clown from Occupy I would say - get a job. Bust your butt. Work your way through college. Apply yourself and you, too, will get ahead. You will NOT get ahead by spending your time whining and moaning with the "woe is me" crap, and thinking anyone owes you a living. As my Dad used to say, "The world may owe you a living - but you have to work like Hell to collect."
Sidney Poitier and Barbara Stanwick both started out in the slums. They decided they wanted something better and they focused on getting ahead. I, myself, was a homeless person in 1990. I decided to do whatever I had to do to get on my feet and get ahead. I am now one of the 1%.
Very few of the 1% were born as 1%-ers. Most worked their butts off to get where they are. No one gave it to them. Mitt Romney did have it given to him, but he did not want it that way - he wanted to do it himself. And he did. That takes something that no Occupy person will ever have - character!
And by the way, Mr. "Occupy" - Barak Obama is ALSO a multimillionaire.
/
Monday, August 27, 2012
Circumcision Back In The News
It wasn't long ago (13 years) that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) said circumcision was not recommended. But that same group now says that the preventative health benefits of infant circumcision clearly outweigh the risks.
I posted that years ago. And when the AAP decided circumcision was unnecessary, I knew then and there that they had their heads up their butts.
AAP fell victim to the assertions of atheists and other non-believers that circumcision was simply a religious rite, outdated and useless. But INTELLIGENT people know otherwise - while it is, indeed, a religious rite, most religious rites were formulated for very real reasons.
Throughout the Bible we have a God who tells us what is, and is not, good for us. We were not advanced or knowledgeable enough to know enough to keep us safe. People did not know eating pork could cause trichinosis (lockjaw), but God did, and told us not to eat pork. And He knew of diseases that could be transmitted by blood, so He said not to consume blood. And He said we should circumcise boys because He knew that urinary tract diseases and other sexual diseases are more easily contracted in the warm, moist folds of an uncircumcised organ.
And I learned that same thing again in first year Biology, way back in 19...well, let's not go there.
So I was surprised when the AAP suggested circumcision was unnecessary in 1999.
But those esteemed physicians have finally caught up with the masses who, while perhaps not educated in medicine, certainly have far more comon sense.
And that's true in all the sciences - scientists often get so caught up in their own little aspect of the world that they become myopic, and fail to see the larger picture.
The scientists who originally supported the Global Warming theory, then later distanced themselves from it, come to mind.
/
I posted that years ago. And when the AAP decided circumcision was unnecessary, I knew then and there that they had their heads up their butts.
AAP fell victim to the assertions of atheists and other non-believers that circumcision was simply a religious rite, outdated and useless. But INTELLIGENT people know otherwise - while it is, indeed, a religious rite, most religious rites were formulated for very real reasons.
Throughout the Bible we have a God who tells us what is, and is not, good for us. We were not advanced or knowledgeable enough to know enough to keep us safe. People did not know eating pork could cause trichinosis (lockjaw), but God did, and told us not to eat pork. And He knew of diseases that could be transmitted by blood, so He said not to consume blood. And He said we should circumcise boys because He knew that urinary tract diseases and other sexual diseases are more easily contracted in the warm, moist folds of an uncircumcised organ.
And I learned that same thing again in first year Biology, way back in 19...well, let's not go there.
So I was surprised when the AAP suggested circumcision was unnecessary in 1999.
But those esteemed physicians have finally caught up with the masses who, while perhaps not educated in medicine, certainly have far more comon sense.
And that's true in all the sciences - scientists often get so caught up in their own little aspect of the world that they become myopic, and fail to see the larger picture.
The scientists who originally supported the Global Warming theory, then later distanced themselves from it, come to mind.
/
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Obama Says Romney Is An "Extremist"
In an interview with AP, President Obama said, "I can't speak to Gov. Romney's motivations," Obama said. "What I can say is that he has signed up for positions, extreme positions, that are very consistent with positions that a number of House Republicans have taken."
I almost hate to break this news to Mr. Obama, but anything he sees as "extremist" is seen by most Americans as normal. The extremist is Barak Obama, who wants to send America's wealth to other nations, wants to give the United Nations sovereignty over our Second Amendment rights, insists that religious people bow to the state decree to violate their religious beliefs, tells entrepreneurs they did not build their own businesses, and actually believes he is "mainstream", and that America is a bully that needs to be reigned in.
And he calls Romney "extreme" because he believes in the right to life (which all Founding Fathers believed in) and believes that you cannot spend your way out of financial trouble.
As a side note, I saw "2016 - Obama's America" today. WOW! It is the first time I have ever witnessed a standing ovation at a movie theater. I already knew WHAT Obama's intentions are, but now I understand WHY. And I must say, it's even more frightening than ever.
/
I almost hate to break this news to Mr. Obama, but anything he sees as "extremist" is seen by most Americans as normal. The extremist is Barak Obama, who wants to send America's wealth to other nations, wants to give the United Nations sovereignty over our Second Amendment rights, insists that religious people bow to the state decree to violate their religious beliefs, tells entrepreneurs they did not build their own businesses, and actually believes he is "mainstream", and that America is a bully that needs to be reigned in.
And he calls Romney "extreme" because he believes in the right to life (which all Founding Fathers believed in) and believes that you cannot spend your way out of financial trouble.
As a side note, I saw "2016 - Obama's America" today. WOW! It is the first time I have ever witnessed a standing ovation at a movie theater. I already knew WHAT Obama's intentions are, but now I understand WHY. And I must say, it's even more frightening than ever.
/
Saturday, August 25, 2012
"2016 - Obama's America" highest sales this weekend
The movie "2016 - Obama's America" has outsold all other movies opening this weekend, according to early reports. I'm not surprized - after 4 years no one yet knows Obama - and they want to.
I wonder if Barak will take Michelle and the kids...
But you should see the libs at HuffPost goin' nuts about it. Here is one of the NICEST posts...
"As to the popularity of this movie, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, really. There are more than enough scared, angry white people out there who are nervous about a black president with a funny name who's kind of liberal being in the white house"
The far-left loons actually believe such things! Makes you wonder hoe Barak Obama got elected with 57% of the vote, even though the black community is only 12% of the population. I guess liberals must believe all the blacks each voted 5 times. In fact, BO got more votes than George Bush did, so we obviously do not fear a black president with a funny name. And BO is not "kind of liberal" - he is far, far left liberal. While a Senator in Illinois he voted not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES to kill babies that survived botched abortions. Can't get any farther left than that.
/
I wonder if Barak will take Michelle and the kids...
But you should see the libs at HuffPost goin' nuts about it. Here is one of the NICEST posts...
"As to the popularity of this movie, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, really. There are more than enough scared, angry white people out there who are nervous about a black president with a funny name who's kind of liberal being in the white house"
The far-left loons actually believe such things! Makes you wonder hoe Barak Obama got elected with 57% of the vote, even though the black community is only 12% of the population. I guess liberals must believe all the blacks each voted 5 times. In fact, BO got more votes than George Bush did, so we obviously do not fear a black president with a funny name. And BO is not "kind of liberal" - he is far, far left liberal. While a Senator in Illinois he voted not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES to kill babies that survived botched abortions. Can't get any farther left than that.
/
Lib Media Manufactures Phony Romney Story
Once again the Huffington Post/Aol liberals have created out of thin air, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, an anti-romney story. While it is normal for liberals to prevaricate at every opportunity in order to win by deception, this one in particular shows their intent. The headline reads:
"Romney's Tax Strategy May Have Employed Legally Dubious Maneuvers"
Now don't forget - they have not seen but one tax return, and nothing "legally dubious" was found - if there had been even a hint of that, it would be all over the media. And despite not having even seen Romney's taxes, HuffPost prints a completely bogus story about how Romney MAY have employed "legally dubious maneuvers".
They are taking after Harry Reid, who also uses the "MAY" technique to create unfounded rumors. "Romney MAY not have paid taxes." and now "Romney MAY have used illegal strategies" on the very same taxes Reid says he MAY not have paid. Which is it?
Well, to all the brain-dead HuffPost fans and other liberals, I would like to point out that HuffPost MAY HAVE been involved in the Aurora shootings, and Harry Reid MAY HAVE molested children.
We know those statements have no foundation of facts, but that does not matter - they are not being stated as facts. And that is the basis of propaganda, deception by false rumors. And the liberals use it as a regular part of their agenda to brainwash their uninformed followers.
Yet I wonder - did HuffPost and Reid learn how to tell bald-faced lies from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, or did they all learn it from the Socialist Saul Alinsky? Anyone who has ever read Alinsky's book knows the answer to that - telling lies and using propaganda to deceive is the #1 method proposed by Alinsky. It is also the core of the book "Mein Kampf", by Adoilf Hitler.
And, yes, so there is no doubt - I AM comparing the methods of the far-left liberals to those of Hitler, simply because they are identical.
/
"Romney's Tax Strategy May Have Employed Legally Dubious Maneuvers"
Now don't forget - they have not seen but one tax return, and nothing "legally dubious" was found - if there had been even a hint of that, it would be all over the media. And despite not having even seen Romney's taxes, HuffPost prints a completely bogus story about how Romney MAY have employed "legally dubious maneuvers".
They are taking after Harry Reid, who also uses the "MAY" technique to create unfounded rumors. "Romney MAY not have paid taxes." and now "Romney MAY have used illegal strategies" on the very same taxes Reid says he MAY not have paid. Which is it?
Well, to all the brain-dead HuffPost fans and other liberals, I would like to point out that HuffPost MAY HAVE been involved in the Aurora shootings, and Harry Reid MAY HAVE molested children.
We know those statements have no foundation of facts, but that does not matter - they are not being stated as facts. And that is the basis of propaganda, deception by false rumors. And the liberals use it as a regular part of their agenda to brainwash their uninformed followers.
Yet I wonder - did HuffPost and Reid learn how to tell bald-faced lies from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, or did they all learn it from the Socialist Saul Alinsky? Anyone who has ever read Alinsky's book knows the answer to that - telling lies and using propaganda to deceive is the #1 method proposed by Alinsky. It is also the core of the book "Mein Kampf", by Adoilf Hitler.
And, yes, so there is no doubt - I AM comparing the methods of the far-left liberals to those of Hitler, simply because they are identical.
/
Racism In America - Maybe Not What You Think
If you listen to the black community or Democrats you would come to the conclusion that there is still a lot of racism in America. But is that really true? Research shows the answer is both yes and no.
Human nature says that there will always be at least a small amount of racism everywhere. It is a natural reaction. In more civilized societies, it is a natural trait that we work to overcome. In America, most white people have succeeded in doing just that, as we have seen by electing an African-American president.
In any presidential election with two white candidates, each would normally receive 40-60% of the vote. In the 2008 election, Obama got 57% of the vote, which indicates race had little to do with the election, at least as far as white voters go. But if you look at how people voted by race, you will notice that a whopping 94% of the black community voted for Obama, not the 40-60% you would expect if the black community were not voting by color alone.
Of course, that particular election can be attributed to the fact that it was the first time blacks could vote their color in a presidential election, so we can overlook it. But in a recent poll by the NYT, the same 94% of the black community says they will AGAIN vote for Obama, even though they are doing worse under his presidency - their income is down more than whites, and unemployment has risen much more than whites, and their educational opportunities have shrunk under Obama. This means they are voting color again, and not policy or performance.
In other words, there is, indeed, racism in America, but the vast majority is coming from the black community, not the white. And that contributes to the number of white people who are still racist. Though very few whites are racist today, many of those who still cling to racist views are doing so because they see and feel the abundance of racism coming from the black community. After all, it is difficult to like someone who hates you.
/
Human nature says that there will always be at least a small amount of racism everywhere. It is a natural reaction. In more civilized societies, it is a natural trait that we work to overcome. In America, most white people have succeeded in doing just that, as we have seen by electing an African-American president.
In any presidential election with two white candidates, each would normally receive 40-60% of the vote. In the 2008 election, Obama got 57% of the vote, which indicates race had little to do with the election, at least as far as white voters go. But if you look at how people voted by race, you will notice that a whopping 94% of the black community voted for Obama, not the 40-60% you would expect if the black community were not voting by color alone.
Of course, that particular election can be attributed to the fact that it was the first time blacks could vote their color in a presidential election, so we can overlook it. But in a recent poll by the NYT, the same 94% of the black community says they will AGAIN vote for Obama, even though they are doing worse under his presidency - their income is down more than whites, and unemployment has risen much more than whites, and their educational opportunities have shrunk under Obama. This means they are voting color again, and not policy or performance.
In other words, there is, indeed, racism in America, but the vast majority is coming from the black community, not the white. And that contributes to the number of white people who are still racist. Though very few whites are racist today, many of those who still cling to racist views are doing so because they see and feel the abundance of racism coming from the black community. After all, it is difficult to like someone who hates you.
/
Friday, August 24, 2012
How Important Is "Like-ability" In A Candidate?
Seems like every time I turn on the news some pundit is talking about "like-ability". Obama's likeability numbers are up. Romneys not so much. Blah, blah, blah.
It doesn't matter for a damn to anyone concerned with our country and its future. We are in a multiple crisis. The economy sucks. The true unemployment rate is over 15%. Things are so bad that illegals are self-deporting. So I don't give a rat's butt if one candidate is more likeable than another. All I care about is which one is more competent!
And judging from how things have gone in the last 4 years, my miniature schnauzer is more competent than anyone in the White House today, and far more competent than most people in the Senate, which hasn't even tried to pass a budget in over three years.
Likeability, Hell - I'll vote for Atilla the Hun if he would fix things.
/
It doesn't matter for a damn to anyone concerned with our country and its future. We are in a multiple crisis. The economy sucks. The true unemployment rate is over 15%. Things are so bad that illegals are self-deporting. So I don't give a rat's butt if one candidate is more likeable than another. All I care about is which one is more competent!
And judging from how things have gone in the last 4 years, my miniature schnauzer is more competent than anyone in the White House today, and far more competent than most people in the Senate, which hasn't even tried to pass a budget in over three years.
Likeability, Hell - I'll vote for Atilla the Hun if he would fix things.
/
Anderson Cooper Catches DNC Chair In ANOTHER Lie
This blog has pointed out several instances where the DNC chair and sitting Senator Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has told out and out bald-faced lies, knowing they were lies. Yesterday, the liberal media finally caught on, having caught her in yet another obvious lie designed to manufacture and fuel the Democrats' bogus claim that Republicans are waging a "war on women".
Wasserman-Schultz has often stated that Romney and Ryan both are fighting to prevent abortions even in cases of rape and incest. Most informed people know that is untrue, but just to be sure, the liberal Los Angeles Times researched that, and determined that those statements were NOT true, that both Romney and Ryan oppose abortion EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest and health of the mother.
Wasserman-Schultz immediately sends out an email to Democrats all across the land stating that the LA Times proved she was right, when in fact the opposite was true. She claimed the Times supported her assertion. It was a lie, and she knew it!
In an interview, Cooper called her on it, and showed her that the times disputed her phony claims. He also proved that Romney and Ryan have stated many times that they would allow exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother.
Wasserman-Schultz' response? "Well, yes, that is what they SAY, but that is not what is in their hearts."
So Comrade Wasserman-Schultz has become God, able to know what is in someone's heart. And she uses that as an excuse to lie.
But that's not the worst of what this bimbo said. She also told Cooper that, even though her claims are lies, she will continue sending those emails. In other words, she will knowingly and intentionally keep telling lies.
And to think this is the person the Democrats chose to represent their party by electing her chair of the DNC.
/
Wasserman-Schultz has often stated that Romney and Ryan both are fighting to prevent abortions even in cases of rape and incest. Most informed people know that is untrue, but just to be sure, the liberal Los Angeles Times researched that, and determined that those statements were NOT true, that both Romney and Ryan oppose abortion EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest and health of the mother.
Wasserman-Schultz immediately sends out an email to Democrats all across the land stating that the LA Times proved she was right, when in fact the opposite was true. She claimed the Times supported her assertion. It was a lie, and she knew it!
In an interview, Cooper called her on it, and showed her that the times disputed her phony claims. He also proved that Romney and Ryan have stated many times that they would allow exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother.
Wasserman-Schultz' response? "Well, yes, that is what they SAY, but that is not what is in their hearts."
So Comrade Wasserman-Schultz has become God, able to know what is in someone's heart. And she uses that as an excuse to lie.
But that's not the worst of what this bimbo said. She also told Cooper that, even though her claims are lies, she will continue sending those emails. In other words, she will knowingly and intentionally keep telling lies.
And to think this is the person the Democrats chose to represent their party by electing her chair of the DNC.
/
Thursday, August 23, 2012
The REAL Reason Bill Clinton Supports Obama
We all know Bill Clinton strongly dislikes Barak Obama, and that he opposes Obama's policies - he has been caught on camera saying so several times. So why is Bill going to be the Democratic Keynote speaker, and why is he doing ads for Obama?
Simple - 2016.
If Obama wins, Hillary can run in 2016 and have a good chance of winning. But if Romney wins, he will likely hold the office until 2020. And if Romney does fix things, a Republican would likely carry the office into 2024. Hillary, if still alive, would be too old. And the Clintons do not want to wait 8 or 12 more years - they already feel they had the last four years pulled out from under them.
/
Simple - 2016.
If Obama wins, Hillary can run in 2016 and have a good chance of winning. But if Romney wins, he will likely hold the office until 2020. And if Romney does fix things, a Republican would likely carry the office into 2024. Hillary, if still alive, would be too old. And the Clintons do not want to wait 8 or 12 more years - they already feel they had the last four years pulled out from under them.
/
Liberals Post Their Hate & Disrespect Of Women
Today, Huffpost/AOL, ever the "news" source for far-left lunatics, posted a non-story slamming the women of Fox News. The topic was that Fox News ladies all depend heavily upon make-up to look beautiful, while the women on liberal news channels (such as Rachel Maddow) use very little make-up.
I won't belabor the simple fact that there is not enough make-up in Hollywood to make Maddow look beautiful - she is what she is and need not apologize for it. But in "siding" with liberal news women, HuffPost actually insulted them by excusing their lack of beauty.
But the real proof that most average liberals are sexist, mysogynistic, hateful and disrespectful is found in the hundreds of comments they posted on the story. If you ever doubted the purely hateful nature of everyday liberals, check out these comments (each followed by my response)...
dave elliott
"if being liberal is wrong i dont want to be right" [REPLY - don't worry - you're not]
"With all that lip gloss, they look like hookers on the make for a trick." that's rich, simply rich! and true. [REPLY - You have real class (not), calling women "hookers" just because they use lip gloss. And stating it as a true fact only proves your hatefulness and ignorance.]
Ericjm
I'm Fairly balanced [REPLY] You forgot the "UN" in front of "balanced"]
"All the makeup in the world won't cover the lack of substance beneath." [REPLY - There is more substance on Fox in 5 minutes than on MSNBC in a full season. But it is especially ignorant and disrespectful of you to say the ladies have no substance. Unlike you, all all college grads, most are lawyers]
HUFFPOST SUPER USER Suzan S
"Yea Wretched Carlson's hair is so stiff she is legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet." [REPLY - Typical "HuffPost Super User" - hate, hate, hate (with a lot of jealousy mixed in]
Ohene
"Empty barrels make the most noise. Fox News girls remind me of the Hefner's girls. The sharpest contrast to them is Rachel Maddow. Rachel is a scholar, astute, deep thinker, analytical, investigative, honest and courageous. Rachel has all the great journalistic and human qualities you will not find in the minds of the Foxy babes." [REPLY - Wow! You think Rachel Maddow is SO much smarter, investigative etc. Sorry to burst your bubble of ignorance and hate, but Greta - an attorney - has greater access to the newsmakers and does in-depth investigations, unlike Maddow who simply regurgitates the NYT. As for your assertion that Fox ladies are not smart, it makes one wonder how they all managed to get law degrees, Masters Degrees etc., while little ol' you apparently had difficulty getting through Junior High.]
HUFFPOST SUPER USER norby413
"I don't understand the question. Most whores wear that much makeup..." [REPLY - Now this is the hate and disrespect that liberals have for women. You can see it in their mindless posts. Yet the lib media jumped on Todd Akin for much less.]
pmac1328
"They're republicans. Covering stuff up is what they do best." [REPLY - You are the most ignorant of all! Kirsten Powers is a liberal Democrat. Greta Van Susteren is a Democrat. As for your stupid assertion that it is Republicans that "cover things up", I would suggest you revisit Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer and a host of other Democrats who tried "covering up". Republicans, on the other hand, tend to own up to their errors.]
GOP lies in harmony
"I've seen better looking blow up dolls. And they are smarter too!" [REPLY - I'm sure you have seen better looking blow-up dolls. How many do you have, anyway? And do any of them have law degrees? Masters?]
blueyesinbhead
"Why Do Fox News Anchors Wear So Much Makeup?"
Because they didn't want them to be ugly inside AND out? [REPLY - Ignorance, hate, disrespect. The war on women comes from the left, not the right. Just how stupid and ignorant must one be to say the Fox ladies are ugly? Sounds like jealousy.]
williamsgofish1
"I hardly think of the Fox women as Super-smart or attractive. I see them at the other end of the spectrum." [REPLY - compared to your comment, you certainly are not at all smart. I would bet any one of the Fox ladies has a much higher I.Q. than you, and a better education. And the fact that you do not find any of them attractive only means you are either blind, or queer.]
Dave F
"Given that beauty is only skin deep, it's no surprise they wear that much makeup. Under bright lighting conditions of a studio, their reptilian nature starts to become visible." [REPLY - it's pretty apparent that the hatred, anger, jealousy and disrespect for women is a trait of the left. I watch the blogs and comments regularly from both liberal and conservative angles, and I rarely see this kind of vitriol come from the right. But is is normal conversation on the left.]
Case closed
/
I won't belabor the simple fact that there is not enough make-up in Hollywood to make Maddow look beautiful - she is what she is and need not apologize for it. But in "siding" with liberal news women, HuffPost actually insulted them by excusing their lack of beauty.
But the real proof that most average liberals are sexist, mysogynistic, hateful and disrespectful is found in the hundreds of comments they posted on the story. If you ever doubted the purely hateful nature of everyday liberals, check out these comments (each followed by my response)...
dave elliott
"if being liberal is wrong i dont want to be right" [REPLY - don't worry - you're not]
"With all that lip gloss, they look like hookers on the make for a trick." that's rich, simply rich! and true. [REPLY - You have real class (not), calling women "hookers" just because they use lip gloss. And stating it as a true fact only proves your hatefulness and ignorance.]
Ericjm
I'm Fairly balanced [REPLY] You forgot the "UN" in front of "balanced"]
"All the makeup in the world won't cover the lack of substance beneath." [REPLY - There is more substance on Fox in 5 minutes than on MSNBC in a full season. But it is especially ignorant and disrespectful of you to say the ladies have no substance. Unlike you, all all college grads, most are lawyers]
HUFFPOST SUPER USER Suzan S
"Yea Wretched Carlson's hair is so stiff she is legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet." [REPLY - Typical "HuffPost Super User" - hate, hate, hate (with a lot of jealousy mixed in]
Ohene
"Empty barrels make the most noise. Fox News girls remind me of the Hefner's girls. The sharpest contrast to them is Rachel Maddow. Rachel is a scholar, astute, deep thinker, analytical, investigative, honest and courageous. Rachel has all the great journalistic and human qualities you will not find in the minds of the Foxy babes." [REPLY - Wow! You think Rachel Maddow is SO much smarter, investigative etc. Sorry to burst your bubble of ignorance and hate, but Greta - an attorney - has greater access to the newsmakers and does in-depth investigations, unlike Maddow who simply regurgitates the NYT. As for your assertion that Fox ladies are not smart, it makes one wonder how they all managed to get law degrees, Masters Degrees etc., while little ol' you apparently had difficulty getting through Junior High.]
HUFFPOST SUPER USER norby413
"I don't understand the question. Most whores wear that much makeup..." [REPLY - Now this is the hate and disrespect that liberals have for women. You can see it in their mindless posts. Yet the lib media jumped on Todd Akin for much less.]
pmac1328
"They're republicans. Covering stuff up is what they do best." [REPLY - You are the most ignorant of all! Kirsten Powers is a liberal Democrat. Greta Van Susteren is a Democrat. As for your stupid assertion that it is Republicans that "cover things up", I would suggest you revisit Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer and a host of other Democrats who tried "covering up". Republicans, on the other hand, tend to own up to their errors.]
GOP lies in harmony
"I've seen better looking blow up dolls. And they are smarter too!" [REPLY - I'm sure you have seen better looking blow-up dolls. How many do you have, anyway? And do any of them have law degrees? Masters?]
blueyesinbhead
"Why Do Fox News Anchors Wear So Much Makeup?"
Because they didn't want them to be ugly inside AND out? [REPLY - Ignorance, hate, disrespect. The war on women comes from the left, not the right. Just how stupid and ignorant must one be to say the Fox ladies are ugly? Sounds like jealousy.]
williamsgofish1
"I hardly think of the Fox women as Super-smart or attractive. I see them at the other end of the spectrum." [REPLY - compared to your comment, you certainly are not at all smart. I would bet any one of the Fox ladies has a much higher I.Q. than you, and a better education. And the fact that you do not find any of them attractive only means you are either blind, or queer.]
Dave F
"Given that beauty is only skin deep, it's no surprise they wear that much makeup. Under bright lighting conditions of a studio, their reptilian nature starts to become visible." [REPLY - it's pretty apparent that the hatred, anger, jealousy and disrespect for women is a trait of the left. I watch the blogs and comments regularly from both liberal and conservative angles, and I rarely see this kind of vitriol come from the right. But is is normal conversation on the left.]
Case closed
/
More Obama Corruption
Reported by the Wall Street Jourmnal and other sources: A refinery in a swing state is facing bankruptcy because of expensive regulations forced by the Obama EPA. Oh, but this is an election year - can't afford to lay off those 850 workers in a swing state!
So, the government virtually takes over the refinery to keep those people employed through the election. He then calls the EPA and at his request, they relax all those regulations for that refinery. Result: no dramatic increase in gas prices in his precious liberal Northeast colonies n(all blue states), and 850 Pennsylvania workers keep their jobs and can feed their families. And a swing state leans further to Obama. Another state purchased by Obama.
Call it what you like - it is CORRUPTION.
If that refinery were facing bankruptcy NEXT year instead of this, the government would never have bailed them out or asked the EPA to relax regulations. Not a chance.
/
So, the government virtually takes over the refinery to keep those people employed through the election. He then calls the EPA and at his request, they relax all those regulations for that refinery. Result: no dramatic increase in gas prices in his precious liberal Northeast colonies n(all blue states), and 850 Pennsylvania workers keep their jobs and can feed their families. And a swing state leans further to Obama. Another state purchased by Obama.
Call it what you like - it is CORRUPTION.
If that refinery were facing bankruptcy NEXT year instead of this, the government would never have bailed them out or asked the EPA to relax regulations. Not a chance.
/
A Prediction On Presidential Debates
Three presidential debates are coming up before long. And I will make a prediction that liberals will not like...
The top two issues on voters minds, according to all polls, are the economy and ObamaCare.
The moderators of all the debates are liberals - every one.
The last thing liberals want is for the debates to focus on the economy or ObamaCare.
My prediction - there will be very little focus on the economy and ObamaCare in the debates. The liberal moderators will avoid those issues as much as they can. And when (if) they do pose any questions on those two issues, they will focus on Romney's response. I seriously doubt they will hardball Obama on those issues, because those issues are losers for liberals.
/
The top two issues on voters minds, according to all polls, are the economy and ObamaCare.
The moderators of all the debates are liberals - every one.
The last thing liberals want is for the debates to focus on the economy or ObamaCare.
My prediction - there will be very little focus on the economy and ObamaCare in the debates. The liberal moderators will avoid those issues as much as they can. And when (if) they do pose any questions on those two issues, they will focus on Romney's response. I seriously doubt they will hardball Obama on those issues, because those issues are losers for liberals.
/
Government Gone Wild
In Phoeniz, AZ Dana Crow-Smith was ordered to stop handing out free bottled water in the 112-degree summer heat at a festival there because she lacked the proper vendor permit.
The problem - no permit is needed to give something away. A vendor permit is required for the "sale of anything of value." Since there was no sale, no permit was necessary.
Just another case of government busybody morons trying to use their authority to bully people.
/
The problem - no permit is needed to give something away. A vendor permit is required for the "sale of anything of value." Since there was no sale, no permit was necessary.
Just another case of government busybody morons trying to use their authority to bully people.
/
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Get Out of Debt The Easy Way
This morning on Fox & Friends they interviewed Dave Ramsey, a financial guy they turn to pretty regularly. And he is good. Very good. But this morning I was disappointed that Mr. Ramsey accepted credit for formulating the "debt snowball" method of erasing your family debts effectively.
The reason I was so disappointed is that I had posted that strategy right here on my blog (also reprinted below) on October 3, 2007. That's 5 years ago! But that was not even the first time I wrote it - I also included it in my book published in 1991 - 21 years ago. And I first devised and used this method to rid myself of debt back in 1974.
While it is incredibly flattering to have someone of Dave Ramsey's stature to tout a strategy that I had provided to my readers for over two decades, it is frustrating to know others often get credit for my work.
Nonetheless, the more important thing is that the info is getting out there. And if Mr. Ramsey wants credit for it, so be it. As long as it helps people, that is what is important. While I would like the credit, I don't need it.
But it is still frustrating.
[reprinted from 2007]
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Getting Out of Debt
A lot of folks have asked me the best, most painless way to get out of debt. Short of dying, the following works pretty well:
1) List all your debts, with the balance and the monthly payment.
2) Choose the one with the smallest balance.
3) Do whatever you must to pay off that one, small balance. Have a yard sale, or sell unwanted items on eBay.
4)
Now use the money you save from not having that payment each month, and
apply it to the monthly payment of the next smallest bill. For example,
if that smallest bill used to have a monthly payment of $25, and the
next smallest has a payment of $50, you would now pay $75/month toward
that next smallest bill, thereby paying it off much faster.
5) Whenever you come into "found" money (unexpected overtime, selling an item etc.), apply those funds to that smallest bill.
6) When that second smallest bill is paid off, apply that $75/month to the next smallest, until it, too, is paid off.
7) As each bill gets paid off, use the savings to apply to the next bill.
You will find that it starts out very slow, but soon snowballs. Take a look:
Let's
say you are making payments of $25, $50, $100, $120 and $150 per month
on various debts, for a total of $445/month. Let's also say you are
paying $1500/month on a mortgage.
By paying off the smallest, you
now apply that $25/month toward the next bill, paying $75/month. When
that bill is paid, you now add that $75 to the $100/month on the next
bill. Eventually, you will be applying the entire $445/month toward the
last debt (not including your mortgage). At that rate, that last debt
gets paid off very quickly. You now have an extra $445/month to improve
your lifestyle, or apply it toward your mortgage, taking several years
off the term of the mortgage - and saving you many thousands in interest
payments.
If this is not fast enough, consider either turning a hobby into an income producing business, take on a part-time job and/or sell off unwanted (or unneeded) items.
[Brought to you by "The Simple Man's Guide to Real Estate"]
/
Atheists vs The Cross At Ground Zero
A group of atheists want the structure of two I-beams from the World Trade Center wreckage, resembling a cross, to be removed from public view. They assert it makes them, and I quote, "physically and mentally sick."
While I heartily agree they are mentally sick, I doubt it has anything to do with that "cross".
Frankly, atheists make ME sick. Perhaps THEY should be removed from public view.
They also state that it is a violation of the Constitution (it is not) because atheists are excluded.
I beg to differ - they are very much included! The cross is a symbol of what Christians believe in. And it is completely surrounded by the symbol of what atheists believe in - a whole lotta NOTHING.
I have said it many times before - the Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. And along those same lines people would do well to remember that there is no Constitutional right to abuse our rights. Nor is there any right to be free from being offended, since everything offends someone, somewhere. Atheists offend me. With every right comes the responsibility to use it wisely and responsibly, and to protect it fiercely.
/
While I heartily agree they are mentally sick, I doubt it has anything to do with that "cross".
Frankly, atheists make ME sick. Perhaps THEY should be removed from public view.
They also state that it is a violation of the Constitution (it is not) because atheists are excluded.
I beg to differ - they are very much included! The cross is a symbol of what Christians believe in. And it is completely surrounded by the symbol of what atheists believe in - a whole lotta NOTHING.
I have said it many times before - the Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. And along those same lines people would do well to remember that there is no Constitutional right to abuse our rights. Nor is there any right to be free from being offended, since everything offends someone, somewhere. Atheists offend me. With every right comes the responsibility to use it wisely and responsibly, and to protect it fiercely.
/
DNC Again Refuses To Pay Its Debts
In a time when the president is calling upon the wealthy to "pay their fair share", it appears he and the Democratic National Committee refuse to pay their just debts. The Democratic National Committee has informed a Connecticut town it will not be reimbursed for the thousands of dollars the city spent on costs for President Obama's fundraising visit earlier this month.
Westport was informed this week that the town's request to have the DNC and Obama for America to cover the $14,812 the city paid in police and fire overtime was denied.
As reported here last month, this is not the first time local officials have gotten in a dispute over payments for security costs to accommodate Obama fundraisers. For months the city of Newport Beach, California has been trying to get the Obama campaign to pay $35,000 in security costs for a fundraiser earlier this year. Compare that to the Romney campaign which did reimburse the city for security costs at a Republican fundraiser.
In Westport Obama was offered the opportunity to "soften any hard feelings" in the town about the visit's costs by holding a public event, such as visiting a nearby 9/11 memorial. Although the memorial was just yards from where the president's helicopter landed, Obama did not visit it. That's gratitude for you. Once again, Democrats have no interest in paying bebts - not theirs, and not America's. /
Westport was informed this week that the town's request to have the DNC and Obama for America to cover the $14,812 the city paid in police and fire overtime was denied.
As reported here last month, this is not the first time local officials have gotten in a dispute over payments for security costs to accommodate Obama fundraisers. For months the city of Newport Beach, California has been trying to get the Obama campaign to pay $35,000 in security costs for a fundraiser earlier this year. Compare that to the Romney campaign which did reimburse the city for security costs at a Republican fundraiser.
In Westport Obama was offered the opportunity to "soften any hard feelings" in the town about the visit's costs by holding a public event, such as visiting a nearby 9/11 memorial. Although the memorial was just yards from where the president's helicopter landed, Obama did not visit it. That's gratitude for you. Once again, Democrats have no interest in paying bebts - not theirs, and not America's. /
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Obama Campaign - Always Hitting A New Low
For the first time in history, Democrats plan on "crashing" the Republican Convention by having Biden and other leaders go to Tampa on the same days and host their own "protest" events, in an attempt to steal the thunder - and the limelight.
No party has ever sunk that low, but leave it to the Obama camp to be the first.
Just when I thought they could not get any lower than calling Romney a murderer and felon.
With over 80 days to go, I am now confident the Obama camp will find even newer - and lower - all-time low, gutter tactics. They have absolutely NO honor. Just more Chicago thuggery.
/
No party has ever sunk that low, but leave it to the Obama camp to be the first.
Just when I thought they could not get any lower than calling Romney a murderer and felon.
With over 80 days to go, I am now confident the Obama camp will find even newer - and lower - all-time low, gutter tactics. They have absolutely NO honor. Just more Chicago thuggery.
/
Todd Akin's Comments - A Different Take
Bear with me a moment...
In the '50's, a college professor taught his classes that glas was a liquid, and flows, which explains why old window panes have "runs" in the glass. This "factoid" spread quickly - my physics teacher taught us the same thing in 1960. To this day, millions of people will swear that glass is liquid, and flows very slowly. The problem is, that "factoid" is not factual. The truth is, glass is a solid. If you doubt this, check with Snopes or other reliable research group.
All those folks who still believe glass is a liquid - are they stupid? No, they are simply mistaken because they were misled by an "authority" on the subject. Happens all the time, ever since science taught everyone the Earth was flat.
Now travel to the '70's when another professor taught his human physiology classes that a women could shut down her reproductive system to prevent pregnancy. Yes, that did occur. And his students spread that fallacy, and millions came to believe it. Maybe the same folks who believed glass was liquid.
The point is, an "authortative" source taught something that was not true, but was believed. To this day, many people still believe it.
Todd Akin is one of those. He spoke what he was taught by an authoritative source. His mistake lay in the fact that he did not keep up on the latest research. Perhaps he owes an apology for not keeping up on such things, but it does not make him stupid, nor ignorant. Just mistaken because he was misled.
To add perspective, until the 1790's doctors believed - were taught - that a woman's reproductive system "traveled" around her body. This journey took 28 days, culminating in having her period. That was how "modern medicine" explained menstruation.
We can all fall victim to "authorities" who spread misinformation. It does not make us stupid.
But none of this changes the simple fact that if Akin loses and the Republicans do not get a majority in the Senate, he will forver be a pariah among his own party - shunned, ostracized and without a friend in the world.
Just sayin'...
/
In the '50's, a college professor taught his classes that glas was a liquid, and flows, which explains why old window panes have "runs" in the glass. This "factoid" spread quickly - my physics teacher taught us the same thing in 1960. To this day, millions of people will swear that glass is liquid, and flows very slowly. The problem is, that "factoid" is not factual. The truth is, glass is a solid. If you doubt this, check with Snopes or other reliable research group.
All those folks who still believe glass is a liquid - are they stupid? No, they are simply mistaken because they were misled by an "authority" on the subject. Happens all the time, ever since science taught everyone the Earth was flat.
Now travel to the '70's when another professor taught his human physiology classes that a women could shut down her reproductive system to prevent pregnancy. Yes, that did occur. And his students spread that fallacy, and millions came to believe it. Maybe the same folks who believed glass was liquid.
The point is, an "authortative" source taught something that was not true, but was believed. To this day, many people still believe it.
Todd Akin is one of those. He spoke what he was taught by an authoritative source. His mistake lay in the fact that he did not keep up on the latest research. Perhaps he owes an apology for not keeping up on such things, but it does not make him stupid, nor ignorant. Just mistaken because he was misled.
To add perspective, until the 1790's doctors believed - were taught - that a woman's reproductive system "traveled" around her body. This journey took 28 days, culminating in having her period. That was how "modern medicine" explained menstruation.
We can all fall victim to "authorities" who spread misinformation. It does not make us stupid.
But none of this changes the simple fact that if Akin loses and the Republicans do not get a majority in the Senate, he will forver be a pariah among his own party - shunned, ostracized and without a friend in the world.
Just sayin'...
/
Monday, August 20, 2012
2016 - Obama's America
I have been interested in checking this movie out - I believe it will validate many of the things I suspect. But that's not the point of this post.
The movie is having a difficult time getting showtimes. Most large theater franchises are owned by liberals and the last thing they want is to show this movie. And the ones who have agreed to - well, they are not ADVERTISING it in their promotions. In other words, while they AGREED to show the movie, they aren't telling anyone.
In the entire state of Maine, only ONE theater has agreed to a showing. But when you go to that theater's website, it is conspicuously missing from the line-up. And in New Hampshire, it's only in two theaters - and again, it does not appear in the NOW PLAYING, or the COMING SOON, or PLAYING THIS WEEK, even though it is supposedly showing this Friday.
When you understand the lengths liberals will go to in order to foist their agenda upon us and to deprive us of the truth, it only proves what the movie is about.
UPDATE: The theaters in NH and ME have finally decided to add "2016 - Obama's America" to their schedule online - in last place.
/
The movie is having a difficult time getting showtimes. Most large theater franchises are owned by liberals and the last thing they want is to show this movie. And the ones who have agreed to - well, they are not ADVERTISING it in their promotions. In other words, while they AGREED to show the movie, they aren't telling anyone.
In the entire state of Maine, only ONE theater has agreed to a showing. But when you go to that theater's website, it is conspicuously missing from the line-up. And in New Hampshire, it's only in two theaters - and again, it does not appear in the NOW PLAYING, or the COMING SOON, or PLAYING THIS WEEK, even though it is supposedly showing this Friday.
When you understand the lengths liberals will go to in order to foist their agenda upon us and to deprive us of the truth, it only proves what the movie is about.
UPDATE: The theaters in NH and ME have finally decided to add "2016 - Obama's America" to their schedule online - in last place.
/
Illegal Immigrants And Driver's Licenses
President Barack Obama's new immigration program will mean some undocumented immigrants will be granted driver's licenses. And in some places like California, there are bills pending that would allow ANY illegal immigrant to obtain a driver's license.
Some serious concerns here. People with a driver's license can fly, enter federal buildings, and even vote! Imagine, Mexico determining who will run America.
I suggest some sanity in place of all the liberal insanity - IF they insist on giving illegals all the same privileges as citizens, the very least they can do is have a SPECIAL driver's license for illegals. Such a license would be a different color AND have the word UNDOCUMENTED or NON-CITIZEN stamped across the face in bold letters. This would make it less likely that illegals would be packing the voting booths.
Certainly, let them get a license, and have to pass the test for safety. But do not let it become a license to vote.
/
Some serious concerns here. People with a driver's license can fly, enter federal buildings, and even vote! Imagine, Mexico determining who will run America.
I suggest some sanity in place of all the liberal insanity - IF they insist on giving illegals all the same privileges as citizens, the very least they can do is have a SPECIAL driver's license for illegals. Such a license would be a different color AND have the word UNDOCUMENTED or NON-CITIZEN stamped across the face in bold letters. This would make it less likely that illegals would be packing the voting booths.
Certainly, let them get a license, and have to pass the test for safety. But do not let it become a license to vote.
/
Sunday, August 19, 2012
How To Create Jobs - The Easy Way
It's not rocket science, folks! Creating jobs is really, REALLY easy.
First, it is essential to understand that jobs are ONLY created by successful businesses. So the one and only question is, "How can we make more businesses more successful." Reasonable, eh? Not if you are a liberal who cares more about REDISTRIBUTING wealth rather than CREATING wealth.
We know that successfuil businesses create jobs. So our objective should be to help them do that. And to do that, we need to identify what can be done to facilitate their success, not stifle it. Here, then, are the roadblocks to success that must be either removed or reduced if we really want to create jobs:
ROADBLOCK #1 - Regulations. Regulations account for about 30% of the cost of running a business. Most businesses have to deal with as many as 15,000 regulations. Most regulations are not even necessary if we go back to FREE MARKETS. Get government out of things and let the public decide which companies are worth doing business with.
ROADBLOCK #2 - Taxes. America has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. By reducing corporate taxes, businesses have more capital to reinvest, to grow. And businesses need to grow if they are to succeed. By reducing taxes, businesses grow, produce more products and jobs, resulting in more income that can be taxed. In other words, reducing taxes will actually result in MORE tax revenue, not less.
ROADBLOCK #3 - Unfettered unions. In America, 20-30% of the cost of doing business can be attributed to union demands for more, more, more. This, and taxes, are the number 1 and 2 reasons why businesses move jobs overseas. Unions should have one objective - to assure that employees are treated fairly and with respect. They should not be permitted to use their power to milk companies dry and provide excessive benefits to people. If a person wants to have more, let them EARN more, rather than just take it.
ROADBLOCK #4 - Uncertainty. In order to be successful, businesses need to have at least a 5 year plan. In fact, investors and lenders will not even back a business unless it has a 5 year plan. But under the current administration, companies cannot even cobble together a 5 MONTH plan. They do not know what the tax rates will be tomorrow, or what new regulations they will confront next week. Congress needs to get their you-know-what together and start creating a more certain environment.
So, America, if it's jobs you want, then it is imperative that we remove the roadblocks that are currently preventing job growth.
/
First, it is essential to understand that jobs are ONLY created by successful businesses. So the one and only question is, "How can we make more businesses more successful." Reasonable, eh? Not if you are a liberal who cares more about REDISTRIBUTING wealth rather than CREATING wealth.
We know that successfuil businesses create jobs. So our objective should be to help them do that. And to do that, we need to identify what can be done to facilitate their success, not stifle it. Here, then, are the roadblocks to success that must be either removed or reduced if we really want to create jobs:
ROADBLOCK #1 - Regulations. Regulations account for about 30% of the cost of running a business. Most businesses have to deal with as many as 15,000 regulations. Most regulations are not even necessary if we go back to FREE MARKETS. Get government out of things and let the public decide which companies are worth doing business with.
ROADBLOCK #2 - Taxes. America has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. By reducing corporate taxes, businesses have more capital to reinvest, to grow. And businesses need to grow if they are to succeed. By reducing taxes, businesses grow, produce more products and jobs, resulting in more income that can be taxed. In other words, reducing taxes will actually result in MORE tax revenue, not less.
ROADBLOCK #3 - Unfettered unions. In America, 20-30% of the cost of doing business can be attributed to union demands for more, more, more. This, and taxes, are the number 1 and 2 reasons why businesses move jobs overseas. Unions should have one objective - to assure that employees are treated fairly and with respect. They should not be permitted to use their power to milk companies dry and provide excessive benefits to people. If a person wants to have more, let them EARN more, rather than just take it.
ROADBLOCK #4 - Uncertainty. In order to be successful, businesses need to have at least a 5 year plan. In fact, investors and lenders will not even back a business unless it has a 5 year plan. But under the current administration, companies cannot even cobble together a 5 MONTH plan. They do not know what the tax rates will be tomorrow, or what new regulations they will confront next week. Congress needs to get their you-know-what together and start creating a more certain environment.
So, America, if it's jobs you want, then it is imperative that we remove the roadblocks that are currently preventing job growth.
/
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Economists For Obama? WHICH Economists?
Huffington Post said that "Economists Back Obama", then the story that followed stated they were "business executives from Europe, NOT economists.
LONDON, Aug 17 (Reuters) - "Twice as many business executives around the world say the global economy will prosper better if incumbent U.S. president Barack Obama wins the next election than if his Republican challenger Mitt Romney does, a poll showed on Friday. Obama was chosen by 42.7 percent in the 1,700 respondent poll, compared with 20.5 percent for Romney. The rest said "neither".
[Bill's Note: So, what this says is that European "business executives", all of whom have successfully destroyed their own countries economically with their liberal, entitlement policies, think Obama is the better person to be president. This, in itself, is reason enough to vote for Romney.]
The lamestream media went on to say, "Romney's choice for running mate gave him no immediate boost to his White House prospects, a Reuters/Ipsos poll suggested on Monday."
That's strange - I have seen most polls, and the vast majority show a substantial boost for the Romney/Ryan ticket. Since Romney announced his VP pck, contributions surged into the millions, and most "swing states" now show Romney with a lead. Sounds to me like the lamestream media and thier biased pollsters are trying to convince us that things are rosey for Obama, in the hope that conservatives will figure they may as well not even vote, that it would be a waste of time.
MEANWHILE... a group of over 400 American economists - 5 of which are Nobel Laureates - have backed the Romney/Ryan plan. But you won't hear THAT from the lamestream media.
The economists who signed on to the pro-Romney statement said, "We enthusiastically endorse Governor Mitt Romney's economic plan to create jobs and restore economic growth while returning America to its tradition of economic freedom."
Romney's plan, they said, "is based on proven principles: a more contained and less intrusive federal government, a greater reliance on the private sector, a broad expansion of opportunity without government favors for special interests, and respect for the rule of law including the decision-making authority of states and localities."
"In sum," they say, the Romney economic plan "is far superior for creating economic growth and jobs than the actions and interventions President Obama has taken or plans to take in the future."
Well, folks, I have said this before - in spite of every pundit that says this will be a close race, I still think it will almost be a landslide for Romney.
/
LONDON, Aug 17 (Reuters) - "Twice as many business executives around the world say the global economy will prosper better if incumbent U.S. president Barack Obama wins the next election than if his Republican challenger Mitt Romney does, a poll showed on Friday. Obama was chosen by 42.7 percent in the 1,700 respondent poll, compared with 20.5 percent for Romney. The rest said "neither".
[Bill's Note: So, what this says is that European "business executives", all of whom have successfully destroyed their own countries economically with their liberal, entitlement policies, think Obama is the better person to be president. This, in itself, is reason enough to vote for Romney.]
The lamestream media went on to say, "Romney's choice for running mate gave him no immediate boost to his White House prospects, a Reuters/Ipsos poll suggested on Monday."
That's strange - I have seen most polls, and the vast majority show a substantial boost for the Romney/Ryan ticket. Since Romney announced his VP pck, contributions surged into the millions, and most "swing states" now show Romney with a lead. Sounds to me like the lamestream media and thier biased pollsters are trying to convince us that things are rosey for Obama, in the hope that conservatives will figure they may as well not even vote, that it would be a waste of time.
MEANWHILE... a group of over 400 American economists - 5 of which are Nobel Laureates - have backed the Romney/Ryan plan. But you won't hear THAT from the lamestream media.
The economists who signed on to the pro-Romney statement said, "We enthusiastically endorse Governor Mitt Romney's economic plan to create jobs and restore economic growth while returning America to its tradition of economic freedom."
Romney's plan, they said, "is based on proven principles: a more contained and less intrusive federal government, a greater reliance on the private sector, a broad expansion of opportunity without government favors for special interests, and respect for the rule of law including the decision-making authority of states and localities."
"In sum," they say, the Romney economic plan "is far superior for creating economic growth and jobs than the actions and interventions President Obama has taken or plans to take in the future."
Well, folks, I have said this before - in spite of every pundit that says this will be a close race, I still think it will almost be a landslide for Romney.
/
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Liberals Claim To Be Less Intelligent Than Conservatives
You read that correctly - liberals spend a lot of time telling us that they are not very bright. If you doubt that, keep your ears open.
Every time I turn around some liberal is saying something that is either stupid or an out-right lie, as when Biden said Republicans want to "put y'all back in chains", or when Obama was caught saying to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to redistribute the wealth, or when Obama said Ryan was blocking the farm bill that Ryan had actually passed. In the last 30 days alone, I have counted 21 such incidents.
Now here's the kicker - in every case, liberals jump to their defense by saying, and I quote, "What he MEANT to say was..."
What do they mean by that? They are saying that the speaker is too stupid or ignorant or deceitful to say what he or she really means.
Liberals like to say that Obama is the smartest guy around, yet every time he says something stupid, the liberal pundits jump in with, "What he meant to say..."
So, are they saying Obama is not smart after all? That he is incapable of saying what he really means? All that time at Harvard and Occidental and he needs some low I.Q. pundit like Chris Matthews to clean up after him.
"What Obama was really saying..."
"What Pelosi meant to say..."
"What Reid really meant was..."
"What Biden was trying to say is..."
Listening to liberals is confusing. They say dumb or offensive things, and then follow up with dumber statements trying to defend the first statement. I do not think I can count high enough to count the times Jay Carney, Alan Colmes or Tamara Holder have used the phrase, "Whe he/she MEANT was..."
It is apparent that the leaders of the Democrat party are ignorant fools who need idiot pundits to do their speaking for them because they are utterly incapable of speaking for themselves without some pundit trying to rewrite it and twist it into something more acceptable to the public.
/
Every time I turn around some liberal is saying something that is either stupid or an out-right lie, as when Biden said Republicans want to "put y'all back in chains", or when Obama was caught saying to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to redistribute the wealth, or when Obama said Ryan was blocking the farm bill that Ryan had actually passed. In the last 30 days alone, I have counted 21 such incidents.
Now here's the kicker - in every case, liberals jump to their defense by saying, and I quote, "What he MEANT to say was..."
What do they mean by that? They are saying that the speaker is too stupid or ignorant or deceitful to say what he or she really means.
Liberals like to say that Obama is the smartest guy around, yet every time he says something stupid, the liberal pundits jump in with, "What he meant to say..."
So, are they saying Obama is not smart after all? That he is incapable of saying what he really means? All that time at Harvard and Occidental and he needs some low I.Q. pundit like Chris Matthews to clean up after him.
"What Obama was really saying..."
"What Pelosi meant to say..."
"What Reid really meant was..."
"What Biden was trying to say is..."
Listening to liberals is confusing. They say dumb or offensive things, and then follow up with dumber statements trying to defend the first statement. I do not think I can count high enough to count the times Jay Carney, Alan Colmes or Tamara Holder have used the phrase, "Whe he/she MEANT was..."
It is apparent that the leaders of the Democrat party are ignorant fools who need idiot pundits to do their speaking for them because they are utterly incapable of speaking for themselves without some pundit trying to rewrite it and twist it into something more acceptable to the public.
/
Gay Shoots Up Family Research Center
A man associated with LGBT shot up the Family Research Center in Washington, wounding a security guard. But that is not the real story. The real story is more disconcerting.
Liberal groups like Huffington Post and Southern Poverty Law Center call the Family Research Center a "hate group" simply because the FRC stands for right to life and traditional marriage. In other words, they are Christian, with Christian ethics. But liberals have a problem with Christian ethics and label any group that has such ethics as a hate group. And they do NOT condemn those who commit violence against such groups. In fact, they encourage it by labeling these organizations as hate groups, and firing whackos up to go out and commit violence. Just 18 hours before this shooting, Huffington Post referred to FRC as a "hate group" that hated gays, even though the FRC does NOT hate gays - they simply believe in the traditional definition of marriage.
Liberals are sick in the head. They cannot allow anyone to have opposing views. They have a pschycopathic need to bully anyone who disagrees with them, even to the point of violence. 99% of the time that one or more persons are involved in a violent act for political reasons, the perps are liberal. It is most unusual to find anyone on the right who physically attacks those with opposing views.
Even our liberal president, vice president, Senate Majority leader and former House Speaker, all liberals, relentlessly attack conservatives and conservative values. Just the other day VP Biden said Republicans want to put African Americans back in chains. He knows that is untrue, but said it to a group of African Americans for the sole purpose of getting them fired up. Biden is very lucky that his stupid rhetoric did not fire some psycho up to the point of killing someone.
Here is a message to Huffington Post and other liberal groups who use their public platform to instigate violence, hate and division - when some moron like the gay man who shot up the FRC commits an act of violence, the fault lies with YOU. You become responsible, and if you keep up the BS, the people of America will turn against you.
/
Liberal groups like Huffington Post and Southern Poverty Law Center call the Family Research Center a "hate group" simply because the FRC stands for right to life and traditional marriage. In other words, they are Christian, with Christian ethics. But liberals have a problem with Christian ethics and label any group that has such ethics as a hate group. And they do NOT condemn those who commit violence against such groups. In fact, they encourage it by labeling these organizations as hate groups, and firing whackos up to go out and commit violence. Just 18 hours before this shooting, Huffington Post referred to FRC as a "hate group" that hated gays, even though the FRC does NOT hate gays - they simply believe in the traditional definition of marriage.
Liberals are sick in the head. They cannot allow anyone to have opposing views. They have a pschycopathic need to bully anyone who disagrees with them, even to the point of violence. 99% of the time that one or more persons are involved in a violent act for political reasons, the perps are liberal. It is most unusual to find anyone on the right who physically attacks those with opposing views.
Even our liberal president, vice president, Senate Majority leader and former House Speaker, all liberals, relentlessly attack conservatives and conservative values. Just the other day VP Biden said Republicans want to put African Americans back in chains. He knows that is untrue, but said it to a group of African Americans for the sole purpose of getting them fired up. Biden is very lucky that his stupid rhetoric did not fire some psycho up to the point of killing someone.
Here is a message to Huffington Post and other liberal groups who use their public platform to instigate violence, hate and division - when some moron like the gay man who shot up the FRC commits an act of violence, the fault lies with YOU. You become responsible, and if you keep up the BS, the people of America will turn against you.
/
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Voter ID Laws Back In The News
A judge has decided not to grant an injunction against Pennsylvania's Voter I.D. law.
Critics say it will prevent citizens from being able to vote because they cannot get an I.D.
Hogwash! State-issued I.D.s are available for FREE to all who want one. But critics say that many people do not have the documents necessary to prove citizenship. Really? Why not? Anyone born in America can request a copy of their birth certificate from either Vital Records or the hospital in which they were born.
Moreover, if they are a LEGAL citizen, and old enough to vote, they need to have a Social Security number - which required proof of citizenship. So, for anyone to claim people cannot get a voter I.D. is just so much blarney.
If you have a bank account, you needed I.D. If you ever cash a check (such as a paycheck) you need I.D. Beer, smokes etc. - I.D. required. A movie rated "R" - I.D. needed. Married? I.D. needed.
Anyone who drives, is married, drinks alcohol, smokes or gets a paycheck has I.D. already. And anyone who does none of that is on welfare - which also requires I.D.
No one - I repeat, NO ONE who is a legal citizen of the U.S. is without I.D., or without the ability to obtain I.D.
Under the old system, anyone could vote - even illegal immigrants, or terrorists from Afghanistan. All that was required was to show that you pay rent, or get a utility bill. And when so many who are not entitled to vote are given the opportunity to vote, we lose our country.
It's that simple.
/
Critics say it will prevent citizens from being able to vote because they cannot get an I.D.
Hogwash! State-issued I.D.s are available for FREE to all who want one. But critics say that many people do not have the documents necessary to prove citizenship. Really? Why not? Anyone born in America can request a copy of their birth certificate from either Vital Records or the hospital in which they were born.
Moreover, if they are a LEGAL citizen, and old enough to vote, they need to have a Social Security number - which required proof of citizenship. So, for anyone to claim people cannot get a voter I.D. is just so much blarney.
If you have a bank account, you needed I.D. If you ever cash a check (such as a paycheck) you need I.D. Beer, smokes etc. - I.D. required. A movie rated "R" - I.D. needed. Married? I.D. needed.
Anyone who drives, is married, drinks alcohol, smokes or gets a paycheck has I.D. already. And anyone who does none of that is on welfare - which also requires I.D.
No one - I repeat, NO ONE who is a legal citizen of the U.S. is without I.D., or without the ability to obtain I.D.
Under the old system, anyone could vote - even illegal immigrants, or terrorists from Afghanistan. All that was required was to show that you pay rent, or get a utility bill. And when so many who are not entitled to vote are given the opportunity to vote, we lose our country.
It's that simple.
/
The Medicare Debate - Simplified
There is a lot of (mis)information going around concerning the opposing Medicare plans. So this post is devoted to making it easy to understand where both parties stand on this crucial issue.
The Democrats want to leave it alone. Keep the status quo. Don't upset the apple cart.
Republicans want to alter Medicare as follows:
1) NO CHANGES for anyone 55 or older. If you are on Medicare, or will be within the next 10 years, you will see no changes to your coverage
2) Anyone 54 or younger would be able to choose, at their own option, whether to go with traditional Medicare OR accept vouchers they can use to obtain their own coverage. The latter is the same plan Congress has.
Now for the hard truth - according to the non-partisan CBO, Medicare as it exists right now will be bankrupt in 12 years. In other words, if you are 53 or younger, you would not have ANY coverage, and those who are already covered would lose coverage. Medicare would be broke.
So, Democrats want to leave Medicare alone. This would result in losing it for everyone. I do not think that is a good plan. It would end in disaster.
The Republican plan allows coverage to continue indefinitely, although it would mean making certain changes for younger people.
For those of you who have ever lived on a farm, or have ever grown crops, you understand - if you eat all the corn you grow, and do not save some for next years' seed, you will go hungry next year.
The Republican plan takes a small amount out to be used for reseeding next year, keeping crops coming, year after year. The Democrat plan simply depletes the crops, using them up - they do not want to take anything out of the crop to be used for sustaining future crops.
There you have it. On the one hand, there would be no chages and Medicare will end in 12 years. On the other hand, minor changes would be made ONLY FOR YOUNGER PEOPLE, and the savings used to make Medicare permanent.
/
The Democrats want to leave it alone. Keep the status quo. Don't upset the apple cart.
Republicans want to alter Medicare as follows:
1) NO CHANGES for anyone 55 or older. If you are on Medicare, or will be within the next 10 years, you will see no changes to your coverage
2) Anyone 54 or younger would be able to choose, at their own option, whether to go with traditional Medicare OR accept vouchers they can use to obtain their own coverage. The latter is the same plan Congress has.
Now for the hard truth - according to the non-partisan CBO, Medicare as it exists right now will be bankrupt in 12 years. In other words, if you are 53 or younger, you would not have ANY coverage, and those who are already covered would lose coverage. Medicare would be broke.
So, Democrats want to leave Medicare alone. This would result in losing it for everyone. I do not think that is a good plan. It would end in disaster.
The Republican plan allows coverage to continue indefinitely, although it would mean making certain changes for younger people.
For those of you who have ever lived on a farm, or have ever grown crops, you understand - if you eat all the corn you grow, and do not save some for next years' seed, you will go hungry next year.
The Republican plan takes a small amount out to be used for reseeding next year, keeping crops coming, year after year. The Democrat plan simply depletes the crops, using them up - they do not want to take anything out of the crop to be used for sustaining future crops.
There you have it. On the one hand, there would be no chages and Medicare will end in 12 years. On the other hand, minor changes would be made ONLY FOR YOUNGER PEOPLE, and the savings used to make Medicare permanent.
/
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Do Liberal Democrats Hate Americans?
I'm getting really sick of the BS coming from Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi and other liberal Democrats. Each has been caught in proven, outright lies. So has Wasserman-Schultz.
These anti-American morons hate you, me and any American that does not conform to THEIR agenda. They say Republicans want dirty air and water, and want to throw granny over the cliff. Biden says we want to put African Americans back in chains. Obama says Ryan is blocking the farm bill, even though Ryan had voted FOR it and helped pass it nearly two weeks earlier. The liberals post an untruthful ad about Romney being responsible for a women dying of cancer, which has been proved to be dishonest on many levels. Still, the Obama campaign stands behind all these nasty, untruthful statements and still insists that these lies are true. In fact, Howard Dean said it doesn't matter if they are lies - people are too ignorant to know any better.
Is that REALLY the kind of people you want running The United States of America? The people who sue the states right and left? Lie about and cover up "Fast & Furious" that killed a border agent? Refuses to enforce laws passed by Congress? Doing end runs around Congress and dictate by fiat, by-passing democracy and the Constitution? Giving over $100 billion to donors? Gambling - and losing - tens of billions of taxpayer money on bankrupt companies like Solyndra?
Are these REALLY the people we want running things?
They are nothing more than lying, conniving Chicago-style thugs.
I truly believe they hate Americans. Republicans are bad. The wealthy are bad. Corporations are bad. Capitalism is bad. Oil companies are bad. Workers who do not belong to unions are bad. Not being on the public teat is bad. Everyone is bad except for themselves.
At this point, I look at the disgusting things this administration is doing and I would rather vote for the Godfather. These moronic clowns demean the offices they hold, and hold Americans in contempt. In an earlier time, they would have been run out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered.
And that would have been too good for them.
/
These anti-American morons hate you, me and any American that does not conform to THEIR agenda. They say Republicans want dirty air and water, and want to throw granny over the cliff. Biden says we want to put African Americans back in chains. Obama says Ryan is blocking the farm bill, even though Ryan had voted FOR it and helped pass it nearly two weeks earlier. The liberals post an untruthful ad about Romney being responsible for a women dying of cancer, which has been proved to be dishonest on many levels. Still, the Obama campaign stands behind all these nasty, untruthful statements and still insists that these lies are true. In fact, Howard Dean said it doesn't matter if they are lies - people are too ignorant to know any better.
Is that REALLY the kind of people you want running The United States of America? The people who sue the states right and left? Lie about and cover up "Fast & Furious" that killed a border agent? Refuses to enforce laws passed by Congress? Doing end runs around Congress and dictate by fiat, by-passing democracy and the Constitution? Giving over $100 billion to donors? Gambling - and losing - tens of billions of taxpayer money on bankrupt companies like Solyndra?
Are these REALLY the people we want running things?
They are nothing more than lying, conniving Chicago-style thugs.
I truly believe they hate Americans. Republicans are bad. The wealthy are bad. Corporations are bad. Capitalism is bad. Oil companies are bad. Workers who do not belong to unions are bad. Not being on the public teat is bad. Everyone is bad except for themselves.
At this point, I look at the disgusting things this administration is doing and I would rather vote for the Godfather. These moronic clowns demean the offices they hold, and hold Americans in contempt. In an earlier time, they would have been run out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered.
And that would have been too good for them.
/
Have You Noticed The Change Since Romney Picked Ryan?
Before Romney chose Ryan as his VP pick, the discourse from the Obama campaign has been "small ball" distractions like tax returns, Bain Capital and other nonsense designed to talk about anything but Obama's failures on the debt, deficit and jobs.
But suddenly, Ryan is tapped as VP and the discourse has risen to actually address the issues - budgets, debt, deficit, jobs...
By choosing Ryan, Romney has effectively forced the Obama folks to talk about issues - the last thing they wanted to do.
/
But suddenly, Ryan is tapped as VP and the discourse has risen to actually address the issues - budgets, debt, deficit, jobs...
By choosing Ryan, Romney has effectively forced the Obama folks to talk about issues - the last thing they wanted to do.
/
How Romney Tax Plan INCREASES Tax On The Wealthy
If you listen to the mainstream media and the Obama bunch, you get the (misguided) impression that Romney wants to increase taxes on the middle class to give tax breaks to the wealthy. But for those of us who have done our homework (i.e. RESEARCH), nothing could be further from the truth.
Here, then, is what the Romney plan really calls for...
First, eliminate the tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy. This actually increases the amount of income they must pay taxes on.
Second, reduce the tax rates for ALL taxpayers, paid for by the added revenue that comes from eliminating the loopholes.
Example...
Current corporate tax rate is 35%, but thanks to loopholes, the effective tax rate could be as low as 0% (as was the case for GE). If companies like GE are paying nothing, the rest of us must pay their share, which keeps our taxes high.
But if you eliminate the loopholes, companies like GE would be paying the full 35%. Therefore, we could actually cut the tax rate for everyone. We could cut the corporate rate to, say, 28%. That is still 28% MORE than GE currently pays. That tax revenue could then be used to cut the tax rates for everyone else. Our 28% rate could be reduced to 24%, and the 15% rate could be reduced to, say, 12%.
In such a scenario, actual overall tax revenues would increase, thereby reducing our deficit.
For those who still may not understand, feel free to ask. But the short take is to reduce everyone's tax rate by eliminating the loopholes that keep the wealthy from paying a "fair share."
/
Here, then, is what the Romney plan really calls for...
First, eliminate the tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy. This actually increases the amount of income they must pay taxes on.
Second, reduce the tax rates for ALL taxpayers, paid for by the added revenue that comes from eliminating the loopholes.
Example...
Current corporate tax rate is 35%, but thanks to loopholes, the effective tax rate could be as low as 0% (as was the case for GE). If companies like GE are paying nothing, the rest of us must pay their share, which keeps our taxes high.
But if you eliminate the loopholes, companies like GE would be paying the full 35%. Therefore, we could actually cut the tax rate for everyone. We could cut the corporate rate to, say, 28%. That is still 28% MORE than GE currently pays. That tax revenue could then be used to cut the tax rates for everyone else. Our 28% rate could be reduced to 24%, and the 15% rate could be reduced to, say, 12%.
In such a scenario, actual overall tax revenues would increase, thereby reducing our deficit.
For those who still may not understand, feel free to ask. But the short take is to reduce everyone's tax rate by eliminating the loopholes that keep the wealthy from paying a "fair share."
/
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Proof The Left INSISTS On Being Ignorant
OK, so educated, informed people (i.e. not ignorant) know certain facts - an Obama SuperPac put out an ad that accuses Mitt Romney of killing some guys wife because the guys company, in which Bain invested, went belly up and his wife later died of cancer. Hence, Romney was responsible for her death.
The other facts we know are that a) Romney left Bain 2 years before the guys' company declared bankruptcy, b) Bain had offered to buy the employees out, and THIS guy refused, c) the man's wife had her OWN insurance from the thrift store she worked at, which had no affiliation with Bain, d) that she lost her thrift store job, and hence her insurance, and e) it was SIX YEARS LATER that she died of cancer. Hence, neither her death nor her loss of insurance had anything to do with Romney or Bain.
We know these facts because, unlike the morons on the left, who revel in their ignorance, we bothered to learn the facts from various fact-check organizations. And even Many Democrats have backed it up.
But that does not stop the uninformed (i.e. ignorant) loons on the far left, like these idiots posting on HuffPost:
carlgt1
"basically Romney did help kill her - by the time she went to the hospital sick the cancer was all through her body and she died a few days later. But losing her healthcare coverage (the real story) and being unable to afford regular checkups (as Romney et al support or even cheer on) was the real "death panel."
And catch THIS guy's handle and description of himself:
clearthinker16
reads, investigates and thinks before making stupid posts
"Mitt's company did it, guilty as charged."
[Ed. note: but he STILL makes "stupid posts", despite supposedly reading, investingating and thinking]
DickRay Schliep
"The add [sic] is 100% accurate. Romney was in charge of Bain, this man lost his insurance and wife ,, all facts. When you and your company are chipped up and sold off or closed you loose everything for the financial gain of a few Bain investors."
turboe4truth
"Wow for an ad that hasn't even RUN......OMG they must be quaking in their BOOTS..And the irony of them saying that the ad is almost likely illegal??? Obama is not ALLOWED to have anything to do with the PAC......."
Unbelievable - this last idiot does not even know that the ad has been running for a week, but still thinks he is informed enough, and smart enough to post his opinion. Talk about ignorance!
Another fact that INFORMED people are aware of - the Obama campaign has been shown to be tied to this ad from the SuperPac. The same guy was recorded in a conference call to the Obama campaign last spring, telling them this same story.
But idiots like these are not really at fault - their only fault lies in not bothering to get informed. The real culprit is the Mainstream Media, which spreads all this misleading misinformation because they are in the tank for Obama and the far-left.
But hey, this is America. The idiots on the far-left have a Constitutional right to be as ignorant as they wish. Too bad they are also allowed to vote - it's like giving thieves the keys to your home.
/
The other facts we know are that a) Romney left Bain 2 years before the guys' company declared bankruptcy, b) Bain had offered to buy the employees out, and THIS guy refused, c) the man's wife had her OWN insurance from the thrift store she worked at, which had no affiliation with Bain, d) that she lost her thrift store job, and hence her insurance, and e) it was SIX YEARS LATER that she died of cancer. Hence, neither her death nor her loss of insurance had anything to do with Romney or Bain.
We know these facts because, unlike the morons on the left, who revel in their ignorance, we bothered to learn the facts from various fact-check organizations. And even Many Democrats have backed it up.
But that does not stop the uninformed (i.e. ignorant) loons on the far left, like these idiots posting on HuffPost:
carlgt1
"basically Romney did help kill her - by the time she went to the hospital sick the cancer was all through her body and she died a few days later. But losing her healthcare coverage (the real story) and being unable to afford regular checkups (as Romney et al support or even cheer on) was the real "death panel."
And catch THIS guy's handle and description of himself:
clearthinker16
reads, investigates and thinks before making stupid posts
"Mitt's company did it, guilty as charged."
[Ed. note: but he STILL makes "stupid posts", despite supposedly reading, investingating and thinking]
DickRay Schliep
"The add [sic] is 100% accurate. Romney was in charge of Bain, this man lost his insurance and wife ,, all facts. When you and your company are chipped up and sold off or closed you loose everything for the financial gain of a few Bain investors."
turboe4truth
"Wow for an ad that hasn't even RUN......OMG they must be quaking in their BOOTS..And the irony of them saying that the ad is almost likely illegal??? Obama is not ALLOWED to have anything to do with the PAC......."
Unbelievable - this last idiot does not even know that the ad has been running for a week, but still thinks he is informed enough, and smart enough to post his opinion. Talk about ignorance!
Another fact that INFORMED people are aware of - the Obama campaign has been shown to be tied to this ad from the SuperPac. The same guy was recorded in a conference call to the Obama campaign last spring, telling them this same story.
But idiots like these are not really at fault - their only fault lies in not bothering to get informed. The real culprit is the Mainstream Media, which spreads all this misleading misinformation because they are in the tank for Obama and the far-left.
But hey, this is America. The idiots on the far-left have a Constitutional right to be as ignorant as they wish. Too bad they are also allowed to vote - it's like giving thieves the keys to your home.
/
Romney Selects Paul Ryan For VP
Now we know!
And it will be fun watching Democrats squirm when they try to say Ryan would "end Medicare as we know it", which has been their mantra against Ryan for three years.
What many do not realize is what the Democrats are actually saying. Read it carefully - especially the part that says "as we know it."
No Republican advocates ending Medicare and Democrats know that, but the IMPRESSION Democrats give is that they would. Democrats understand that most people would not even give any thought to the qualifier: "AS WE KNOW IT."
Yes, Republicans WOULD end Medicare as we know it, and that is a good thing. Good because Medicare, as we know it, is going bankrupt. It cannot be sustained as-is. So there are only two possible choices - either change it (end it as we know it) or simply allow it to become bankrupt so no one has that precious lifeline anymore.
Which do YOU think is the smart move?
The Democrats - particularly Obama, Pelosi and Reid - have all indicated that they would do nothing, change nothing, even though every number-cruncher has proved that Medicare will soon be bust if it is not changed. Only the Republicans - particularly Ryan - have put forth a common sense solution that would alter Medicare enough so that it can be sustained, and provide benefits for generations to come.
Changing Medicare for those under 55 may, indeed, slightly affect benefits. But where I come from we are taught at a young age that a piece of pie is better than no pie at all. And if Medicare is not "ended as we know it", it will come to an end all by itself and there will be no pie at all.
/
And it will be fun watching Democrats squirm when they try to say Ryan would "end Medicare as we know it", which has been their mantra against Ryan for three years.
What many do not realize is what the Democrats are actually saying. Read it carefully - especially the part that says "as we know it."
No Republican advocates ending Medicare and Democrats know that, but the IMPRESSION Democrats give is that they would. Democrats understand that most people would not even give any thought to the qualifier: "AS WE KNOW IT."
Yes, Republicans WOULD end Medicare as we know it, and that is a good thing. Good because Medicare, as we know it, is going bankrupt. It cannot be sustained as-is. So there are only two possible choices - either change it (end it as we know it) or simply allow it to become bankrupt so no one has that precious lifeline anymore.
Which do YOU think is the smart move?
The Democrats - particularly Obama, Pelosi and Reid - have all indicated that they would do nothing, change nothing, even though every number-cruncher has proved that Medicare will soon be bust if it is not changed. Only the Republicans - particularly Ryan - have put forth a common sense solution that would alter Medicare enough so that it can be sustained, and provide benefits for generations to come.
Changing Medicare for those under 55 may, indeed, slightly affect benefits. But where I come from we are taught at a young age that a piece of pie is better than no pie at all. And if Medicare is not "ended as we know it", it will come to an end all by itself and there will be no pie at all.
/
Friday, August 10, 2012
When You Burn Your Food Supply
Years ago I began blogging that it was a VERY bad idea to add ethanol to our fuel supply. I showed that it cost $1.80 to produce the equivalent of $1 of gasoline, and proved that it was actually less "green" because of all the fossil fuel needed to plant, grow, harvest, transport and convert corn to ethanol. But the government made it mandatory, anyway.
I also said it is always - ALWAYS - a bad idea to burn your food supply. Much of our food depends upon corn to feed the beef, pork and fowl critters that provide our meat, and cows that produce the dairy such as milk and chees, which affects almost everything else, from pizza to ice cream. By burning corn in our gas tanks, all those food products will go up in price.
So, even without the current drought, the cost of ethanol is outrageous, especially since taxpayers subsidize it in order to make it LOOK cost-effective.
But now we are suffering a drought in the corn belt. A shortage of corn means our food will start costing even more. Every food. And many other things, too, since trucks that transport all goods will be burning the more expensive fuel (corn was $2/bushel in 2000 - today it is aboy $8/bushel).
Thanks to the whacky renvironmentalists who have no propensity for thinking anything through, our fel, food, clothing and everything else have risen in price, and will rise further. And in the process, we will continue to burn more fossil fuel to produce the ethanol, and pay ever-increasing amounts of tax dollars for subsidies to the ethanol producers - the only ones getting rich from this.
/
I also said it is always - ALWAYS - a bad idea to burn your food supply. Much of our food depends upon corn to feed the beef, pork and fowl critters that provide our meat, and cows that produce the dairy such as milk and chees, which affects almost everything else, from pizza to ice cream. By burning corn in our gas tanks, all those food products will go up in price.
So, even without the current drought, the cost of ethanol is outrageous, especially since taxpayers subsidize it in order to make it LOOK cost-effective.
But now we are suffering a drought in the corn belt. A shortage of corn means our food will start costing even more. Every food. And many other things, too, since trucks that transport all goods will be burning the more expensive fuel (corn was $2/bushel in 2000 - today it is aboy $8/bushel).
Thanks to the whacky renvironmentalists who have no propensity for thinking anything through, our fel, food, clothing and everything else have risen in price, and will rise further. And in the process, we will continue to burn more fossil fuel to produce the ethanol, and pay ever-increasing amounts of tax dollars for subsidies to the ethanol producers - the only ones getting rich from this.
/
Department of (in)Justice Strikes Again
We currently have the absolute worst Department of Justice in the history of America. Under the partisan, incompetent Eric Holder, the DOJ has made one wrong move after another. Just a few, of many...
Wanted to try the terrorist Sheik in New York City
Dropped charges of voter intimidation against Black Panthers already found guilty
Has sued several states for a variety of partisan reasons
Presided over "Fast & Furious", got a border agent murdered, and held in contempt of Congress
And has now dropped charges against Goldman-Sachs, the powerful bank that actually created the mess that caused the economic failure these last few years. No one will be held responsible.
I'm not surprised at any of these moves by that corrupt Chicago thug, partoicularly the last one - since Goldman-Sachs people are IN the administration, is providing financial support for their campaign, and I'll bet several administration officials will end up working at GS after we, the people, kick their butts out of Washington.
/
Wanted to try the terrorist Sheik in New York City
Dropped charges of voter intimidation against Black Panthers already found guilty
Has sued several states for a variety of partisan reasons
Presided over "Fast & Furious", got a border agent murdered, and held in contempt of Congress
And has now dropped charges against Goldman-Sachs, the powerful bank that actually created the mess that caused the economic failure these last few years. No one will be held responsible.
I'm not surprised at any of these moves by that corrupt Chicago thug, partoicularly the last one - since Goldman-Sachs people are IN the administration, is providing financial support for their campaign, and I'll bet several administration officials will end up working at GS after we, the people, kick their butts out of Washington.
/
The Daily Deceit - An Obama Trait
From a speech Obama gave just yesterday:
"What we did for the auto industry (bailing it out with taxpayer money, robbing the investors to give the money to the union) we can do for manufacturing all across America."
Well, let's look at what he did for the auto industry...
The biggest "success story", according to Obama, is General Motors. And General Motors' profits are off 41%. And 20,000 Delphi employees lost their pensions so the United Auto Workers Union could get all of theirs.
Gee, Mr. Obama, I'm not a math whiz, so let me think about this, 'cuz I'm not sure I want that to happen to manufacturing all across America.
/
"What we did for the auto industry (bailing it out with taxpayer money, robbing the investors to give the money to the union) we can do for manufacturing all across America."
Well, let's look at what he did for the auto industry...
The biggest "success story", according to Obama, is General Motors. And General Motors' profits are off 41%. And 20,000 Delphi employees lost their pensions so the United Auto Workers Union could get all of theirs.
Gee, Mr. Obama, I'm not a math whiz, so let me think about this, 'cuz I'm not sure I want that to happen to manufacturing all across America.
/
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Shakeup At Susan G Komen Foundation
It seems many of the top brass - including the founder, is either leaving the Susan G Komen Foundation or remaining only in some ancillary position. The question is - why?
The Foundation was doing very well until early this year when they decided to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. But far-left liberals screamed long and loud, so the Foundation reversed its decision. Since then, the Foundation has been floundering financially.
The far left tries to tell us it is because people stopped supporting the Foundation because they had first decided to abandon Planned Parenthood. And it appears they have convinced Komen bigwigs of that fallacy. But the truth is actually just the opposite.
Yes, a handful of noisy, whiny liberals may have stopped donating when the decision to cut funding to PP was initially made - liberals tend to yell and complain loud enough to make it appear they are the majority (which is never the case - fewer than 1 in 5 Americans are liberals).
The real problem lies in Komen's decision to REVERSE their decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Once they restored funding, a huge majority of people who had supported Komen stopped doing so. The sale of "Breast Cancer Pink" items fell sharply. Donations stopped coming in - not the ones from the few, noisy liberals, but the ones from the majority of Americans who do not believe in paying for someone else's abortions (abortion is the biggest money maker for Planned Parenthood). As an example, my wife, once an avid supporter, has paid a lot of extra bucks each year to have a pink "breast cancer" vehicle license plate, with the proceeds going to Komen. Once Komen made it public they would be supporting PP, my wife no longer pays for that special plate. Nor do we buy into anything that supports Komen.
So, Komen suffers. They, and the far left lunatics who bully anyone who opposes them would have us believe they are suffering because they had withdrawn support of PP for 3 days. That's absurd. If that were the case, the support for Komen would have been restored when they resumed funding of PP.
Make no mistake - liberals use deceit at every turn. White is black, day is night, and if they yell loud enough and tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
Examples: Obama said in a recent speech that "Republicans want dirty air and dirty water." Absurd - we breathe and drink, too. And Fluke says Republicans want to roll back women's rights - again, absurd. Many Republicans are either women, or married to women, or have daughters. Obama said that "the private sector is doing fine." Nothing could be further from the truth - but then, he is not particularly affiliated with the truth.
If the Komen Foundation is truly interested in regaining their former position, they should consider that the liberals bullying them are the culprits, and not their friend. They should also remember that every study has shown liberals rarely make contributions to any charity with their own money (they prefer to take mine, in taxes, and give THAT away to Planned Parenthood). So, if they want donations to flow, maybe they should cater more to those who actually do contribute to charity - conservatives.
/
The Foundation was doing very well until early this year when they decided to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. But far-left liberals screamed long and loud, so the Foundation reversed its decision. Since then, the Foundation has been floundering financially.
The far left tries to tell us it is because people stopped supporting the Foundation because they had first decided to abandon Planned Parenthood. And it appears they have convinced Komen bigwigs of that fallacy. But the truth is actually just the opposite.
Yes, a handful of noisy, whiny liberals may have stopped donating when the decision to cut funding to PP was initially made - liberals tend to yell and complain loud enough to make it appear they are the majority (which is never the case - fewer than 1 in 5 Americans are liberals).
The real problem lies in Komen's decision to REVERSE their decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Once they restored funding, a huge majority of people who had supported Komen stopped doing so. The sale of "Breast Cancer Pink" items fell sharply. Donations stopped coming in - not the ones from the few, noisy liberals, but the ones from the majority of Americans who do not believe in paying for someone else's abortions (abortion is the biggest money maker for Planned Parenthood). As an example, my wife, once an avid supporter, has paid a lot of extra bucks each year to have a pink "breast cancer" vehicle license plate, with the proceeds going to Komen. Once Komen made it public they would be supporting PP, my wife no longer pays for that special plate. Nor do we buy into anything that supports Komen.
So, Komen suffers. They, and the far left lunatics who bully anyone who opposes them would have us believe they are suffering because they had withdrawn support of PP for 3 days. That's absurd. If that were the case, the support for Komen would have been restored when they resumed funding of PP.
Make no mistake - liberals use deceit at every turn. White is black, day is night, and if they yell loud enough and tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
Examples: Obama said in a recent speech that "Republicans want dirty air and dirty water." Absurd - we breathe and drink, too. And Fluke says Republicans want to roll back women's rights - again, absurd. Many Republicans are either women, or married to women, or have daughters. Obama said that "the private sector is doing fine." Nothing could be further from the truth - but then, he is not particularly affiliated with the truth.
If the Komen Foundation is truly interested in regaining their former position, they should consider that the liberals bullying them are the culprits, and not their friend. They should also remember that every study has shown liberals rarely make contributions to any charity with their own money (they prefer to take mine, in taxes, and give THAT away to Planned Parenthood). So, if they want donations to flow, maybe they should cater more to those who actually do contribute to charity - conservatives.
/
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Sandra Fluke, Typical Dishonest Liberal
As you may know, Obama feels he is losing the women's vote - and rightfully so. In a transparent attempt to pander to women, he invited Sandra Fluke to introduce him at his Denver speech.
And I must say, if Fluke represents todays young women, it's no wonder so many guys are choosing homosexuality.
Ms. Fluke is as dishonest as most other far-left liberals of the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz ilk. For example, she said Romney and Republicans "want to prevent women from having access to contraceptives." Blatantly untrue! No one wants to deprive access to contraceptives, and that was never the issue. The issue was, who should PAY for it? Fluke and other freeloading liberals think the taxpayer should pay for their sexual escapades. Conservatives like Romney think the individual should pay for their own - it's only $9/month at WalMart. Republicans do not believe that taxpayers should be forced to pay for anything that offends their religious beliefs.
After all, I don't see Fluke volunteering to buy my beer! Hey, tell ya what, Sandra - I'll pay the $9/month for your contraceptives as soon as you agree to pay for my Viagra at $5-$14 PER PILL! After all, if I should pay for YOUR fun, shouldn't you pay for mine? Or do you think only women have "rights" concerning their sex lives?
Ms. Fluke went on to say that if Romney and Republicans get elected, "all the gains in women's rights for the last few decades would be rolled back." Again, absolutely false. A lie. No one wants to roll back any women's rights, and no one has advocated doing so. Once again, the issue was who should PAY for a women's access to controversial services such as contraception and abortion. And Republicans think those are personal issues and should be paid for by the person.
Fluke knows the truth, as do all liberals. They simply refuse to accept it. They refuse to admit it. They know, as do conservatives, that taxpayers should never be forced to pay for products or services for other people if those products/services violate the tenets of a persons faith and if those "other people" were perfectly capable of doing for themselves. And Fluke, the loudest whiner, has graduated from law school and will likely earn more in a month than most people earn in a year. She can afford her own. And for those who truly cannot, there are Planned Parenthoods and other women's clinics in almost every locality that provide free contraceptives.
And they know, too, that there should be no "free lunch" - it is morally wrong to not earn your own way, as long as you are physically and mentally able. The pyramids were built only because everyone pulled together, doing their "fair share" of the work. Imagine if it were left to a handful of people to do the work for everyone, while the rest sat around soaking their feet in the Nile.
/
And I must say, if Fluke represents todays young women, it's no wonder so many guys are choosing homosexuality.
Ms. Fluke is as dishonest as most other far-left liberals of the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz ilk. For example, she said Romney and Republicans "want to prevent women from having access to contraceptives." Blatantly untrue! No one wants to deprive access to contraceptives, and that was never the issue. The issue was, who should PAY for it? Fluke and other freeloading liberals think the taxpayer should pay for their sexual escapades. Conservatives like Romney think the individual should pay for their own - it's only $9/month at WalMart. Republicans do not believe that taxpayers should be forced to pay for anything that offends their religious beliefs.
After all, I don't see Fluke volunteering to buy my beer! Hey, tell ya what, Sandra - I'll pay the $9/month for your contraceptives as soon as you agree to pay for my Viagra at $5-$14 PER PILL! After all, if I should pay for YOUR fun, shouldn't you pay for mine? Or do you think only women have "rights" concerning their sex lives?
Ms. Fluke went on to say that if Romney and Republicans get elected, "all the gains in women's rights for the last few decades would be rolled back." Again, absolutely false. A lie. No one wants to roll back any women's rights, and no one has advocated doing so. Once again, the issue was who should PAY for a women's access to controversial services such as contraception and abortion. And Republicans think those are personal issues and should be paid for by the person.
Fluke knows the truth, as do all liberals. They simply refuse to accept it. They refuse to admit it. They know, as do conservatives, that taxpayers should never be forced to pay for products or services for other people if those products/services violate the tenets of a persons faith and if those "other people" were perfectly capable of doing for themselves. And Fluke, the loudest whiner, has graduated from law school and will likely earn more in a month than most people earn in a year. She can afford her own. And for those who truly cannot, there are Planned Parenthoods and other women's clinics in almost every locality that provide free contraceptives.
And they know, too, that there should be no "free lunch" - it is morally wrong to not earn your own way, as long as you are physically and mentally able. The pyramids were built only because everyone pulled together, doing their "fair share" of the work. Imagine if it were left to a handful of people to do the work for everyone, while the rest sat around soaking their feet in the Nile.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)