Clicking on DemocracyLover accidentally, I discovered that site no longer exists. In fact, it seems as if DL no longer blogs or no longer blogs under that name. Seems I'll have to review my list and delete or update any other changes.
I wonder what became of him? I know other lib visitors still blog, even if they no longer wish to blog here. One guy, Les, my favorite lib, has gone so far as to "defriend" me on Facebook, though I wonder if he still lurks. But his blog wasn't on the roll anyway.
It's really too bad that I've lost so many visitors from the left. I'm told it's because I'm too stubborn to listen to reason, or some such whine. Apparently, if one does not concede to a lefty, one is stubborn or lacking in sense or intelligence. OR, they will go with the tiresome "we'll have to agree to disagree", which I can do at the end of the day, but makes no sense in a debate. If one wishes to present an opinion, it only makes sense that one be prepared to defend it against those who might find that opinion to be crap.
But I remain open to challenges to MY opinions and am willing to see it to whatever conclusion results. I just didn't figure on the most common conclusion being the lefty running away like a crybaby saying I'm a meanie.
Here's an example of how this has worked out from the other direction. There is one issue that comes to mind over which I have not been able to defend or explain. That would be the supposed restrictions Paul speaks of regarding women speaking in church. It also covers the notion of whether or not women are meant to be or should be ministers. I haven't gotten to a personal conclusion on the topic but feel that it is generally not a woman's role in the church. When the subject comes up, I choose to shelve the issue as I am not settled on the issue. Were I forced to wage such a battle, I would have to concede my position for the time being until such time as I could jump in again with new arguments. (This is not an invitation to open such a discussion at this time.)
But on other arguments, such as abortion or sexual morality, all true facts and arguments support MY positions to a point of frustration for my opponents and rather than show grace under fire, as one particular opponent constantly demands of me, they flee showing their own stubbornness in refusing to concede anything no matter how weak their arguments are shown to be.
So I wonder if this is what compelled DL to bail on the blogging thing. I hope it wasn't something actually serious, such as illness or death. For even the most insufferable trolls I wish for no such end, but only mature and civil discussion. All are welcome here, at least so far.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Friday, October 01, 2010
What's Really Important
In my last post, where I dealt with an apology from IL Senate candidate Steve Raushenberger for referring to homosexual marriage as "abnormal", little Parklife pooh-poohed my comments as a 2.4 on the "unfortunate-postings-richter" scale due to current coverage of the Tyler Clementi suicide. Oh, yeah. And the post was "homophobic" too, of course. Idiocy. I can just imagine his outrage had I posted the Ellen Degeneres call for a stop to bullying, which I was hoping to do. AOL or Yahoo had the vid and now neither does and I don't feel like searching for it. It's not necessary.
I was not surprised that Degeneres would weep over the death of this kid, or the other two or three she mentioned who also took their lives after being harrassed in one way or another. It is indeed sad, unfortunate, horrible, tragic and any number of other somber and negative adjectives one could think to apply to such an event. Of the few things in this life that can really get me going emotionally, the death of a kid is tops.
But, though I won't go so far as to say that Degeneres' concerns are motivated solely to promote the agenda homosexuals pretend doesn't exist, I have to object to the implication that there is something more devastating, more tragic, that a bullied homosexual kid would take his own life than any other bullied kid. I mean, why focus only on homosexual kids and not all kids who are bullied? But she calls this sad event a wake-up call to a phenomena that is epidemic. I don't believe it is.
This isn't the first time I've touched on this topic. It's come up in discussions of the infiltration into schools by homosexual activist groups posing as folks concerned about bullying, but only dealing with bullied homosexuals, while they really seek to further the agenda that homosexuals pretend doesn't exist.
Bullying by kids against other kids is as old as human existence. I'll bet it's older than the oldest profession. Kids are mean bastards. They really are. They are guided to be something better if they have half-way decent parents, but left to their own, well, I wouldn't want to leave them to their own devices. Lord of The Flies, anyone?
Kids who are bullies will bully for any reason that presents itself, and in lieu of such a presentation, will create one to serve the purpose. Kids who are bullies think bullying is fun. They get a kick out of it, and like adult bullies, they are charged up by the feeling of power they get from running roughshod over a helpless victim. The reason to bully is irrelevant to them. The victim might be fat, short, a different race, might have a big nose or wear thick glasses, might be the teacher's pet or be a goody-two-shoes or yes, might be as queer as a three dollar bill in one way or another. But what is common among these unfortunates is that they are all weaker in some way, or appear to be or are when they find themselves within the circle of the bully and his lackies.
So the bullies go for it. They do what they do and if the kid is a homo, that's just an excuse for the bully to express his personal brand of malevolence. But is the homo more likely to get bullied? I don't know if we can make that judgement. According to FBI hate crimes stats for 2008, 7780 single bias incidents revealed that 51.3% were motivated by race. Of that number, only 1200 were anti-homo events, which is a bit less than 15.5%. Ellen says it's a growing issue, but we're told that kids these days don't have as much a problem with homosexuality. I'm confused. 15% of the total hate crimes doesn't sound like an epidemic. 77% of school kids claim to have been bullied. If 15% of those are homosexuals, what of the other 85?
I'm not trying to minimize the seriousness of child homosexuals killing themselves. But even to claim that they are killing themselves in greater numbers would require some evidence (as if the reason for kids killing themselves matters in the first place). I've found that half of the kids who consider themselves Goths have considered suicide seriously. (Or perhaps it was half the Goths have done so. I don't recall for sure and it's besides the point.) Depression among teens is commonplace and a major factor in all teen suicides, be they homos or not. The real issue here is that kids consider suicide at all. The reason for it is irrelevant.
So, notice the two major irrelvancies. The reason to bully and the reason to kill one's self. The reasons for either are of no concern to any rational and truly caring person. I don't care why a bully bullies. I just want him to stop. And I don't care why any kid wants to off himself. I just want him to go on living.
If you're going to say that you are concerned about bullying, then deal with the agressive tendencies of the bullies. Come down hard on every incident and make that one of those "zero tolerance" thingies that are all the rage in schools these days. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for bullying. Bullies need help. Some need incarceration. Left unchecked, they're more likely to go on to do worse things.
If you're going to say that you are concerned about the victims of bullying, then show concern for them all equally without favoring the homosexuals as being in greater need of protection. That's absolute crap and an assault on the dignity and value of all those other kids who are suffering just as badly at being bullied and harrassed for a different reason.
And if you say you are concerned about teen suicides, don't pretend that homosexuals are checking out in greater numbers. From what I've read, it's up across the board and the reason is the least important aspect. The choice of suicide as a viable option for anyone is reason to be concerned, and those who preside over kids should take pains to learn about the warning signs.
Finally, if the Ellens of the world want to insist that homosexual kids are somehow more likely to commit suicide over bullying or harrassment, doesn't that say something about the nature of homosexuals? Amongst those who aren't impacted by the pressures of the activists pushing the agenda that homosexuals pretend doesn't exist, there is still the question of which comes first: are emotional problems the result of being homosexual, or can emotional problems result in some turning to homosexuality? Of all the aspects surrounding the issue of homosexuality never to have been settled definitively, this is but one. A minor one perhaps, but when the issue concerns kids, I don't much care what the activists think or feel. It's something that needs to be settled.
I was not surprised that Degeneres would weep over the death of this kid, or the other two or three she mentioned who also took their lives after being harrassed in one way or another. It is indeed sad, unfortunate, horrible, tragic and any number of other somber and negative adjectives one could think to apply to such an event. Of the few things in this life that can really get me going emotionally, the death of a kid is tops.
But, though I won't go so far as to say that Degeneres' concerns are motivated solely to promote the agenda homosexuals pretend doesn't exist, I have to object to the implication that there is something more devastating, more tragic, that a bullied homosexual kid would take his own life than any other bullied kid. I mean, why focus only on homosexual kids and not all kids who are bullied? But she calls this sad event a wake-up call to a phenomena that is epidemic. I don't believe it is.
This isn't the first time I've touched on this topic. It's come up in discussions of the infiltration into schools by homosexual activist groups posing as folks concerned about bullying, but only dealing with bullied homosexuals, while they really seek to further the agenda that homosexuals pretend doesn't exist.
Bullying by kids against other kids is as old as human existence. I'll bet it's older than the oldest profession. Kids are mean bastards. They really are. They are guided to be something better if they have half-way decent parents, but left to their own, well, I wouldn't want to leave them to their own devices. Lord of The Flies, anyone?
Kids who are bullies will bully for any reason that presents itself, and in lieu of such a presentation, will create one to serve the purpose. Kids who are bullies think bullying is fun. They get a kick out of it, and like adult bullies, they are charged up by the feeling of power they get from running roughshod over a helpless victim. The reason to bully is irrelevant to them. The victim might be fat, short, a different race, might have a big nose or wear thick glasses, might be the teacher's pet or be a goody-two-shoes or yes, might be as queer as a three dollar bill in one way or another. But what is common among these unfortunates is that they are all weaker in some way, or appear to be or are when they find themselves within the circle of the bully and his lackies.
So the bullies go for it. They do what they do and if the kid is a homo, that's just an excuse for the bully to express his personal brand of malevolence. But is the homo more likely to get bullied? I don't know if we can make that judgement. According to FBI hate crimes stats for 2008, 7780 single bias incidents revealed that 51.3% were motivated by race. Of that number, only 1200 were anti-homo events, which is a bit less than 15.5%. Ellen says it's a growing issue, but we're told that kids these days don't have as much a problem with homosexuality. I'm confused. 15% of the total hate crimes doesn't sound like an epidemic. 77% of school kids claim to have been bullied. If 15% of those are homosexuals, what of the other 85?
I'm not trying to minimize the seriousness of child homosexuals killing themselves. But even to claim that they are killing themselves in greater numbers would require some evidence (as if the reason for kids killing themselves matters in the first place). I've found that half of the kids who consider themselves Goths have considered suicide seriously. (Or perhaps it was half the Goths have done so. I don't recall for sure and it's besides the point.) Depression among teens is commonplace and a major factor in all teen suicides, be they homos or not. The real issue here is that kids consider suicide at all. The reason for it is irrelevant.
So, notice the two major irrelvancies. The reason to bully and the reason to kill one's self. The reasons for either are of no concern to any rational and truly caring person. I don't care why a bully bullies. I just want him to stop. And I don't care why any kid wants to off himself. I just want him to go on living.
If you're going to say that you are concerned about bullying, then deal with the agressive tendencies of the bullies. Come down hard on every incident and make that one of those "zero tolerance" thingies that are all the rage in schools these days. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for bullying. Bullies need help. Some need incarceration. Left unchecked, they're more likely to go on to do worse things.
If you're going to say that you are concerned about the victims of bullying, then show concern for them all equally without favoring the homosexuals as being in greater need of protection. That's absolute crap and an assault on the dignity and value of all those other kids who are suffering just as badly at being bullied and harrassed for a different reason.
And if you say you are concerned about teen suicides, don't pretend that homosexuals are checking out in greater numbers. From what I've read, it's up across the board and the reason is the least important aspect. The choice of suicide as a viable option for anyone is reason to be concerned, and those who preside over kids should take pains to learn about the warning signs.
Finally, if the Ellens of the world want to insist that homosexual kids are somehow more likely to commit suicide over bullying or harrassment, doesn't that say something about the nature of homosexuals? Amongst those who aren't impacted by the pressures of the activists pushing the agenda that homosexuals pretend doesn't exist, there is still the question of which comes first: are emotional problems the result of being homosexual, or can emotional problems result in some turning to homosexuality? Of all the aspects surrounding the issue of homosexuality never to have been settled definitively, this is but one. A minor one perhaps, but when the issue concerns kids, I don't much care what the activists think or feel. It's something that needs to be settled.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Just Some Stuff
Why Apologize?
Steve Raushenberger came in second in the Illinois GOP primary vote for US Senator to Jack Ryan, whose opponent wound up being one Barack Hussein Obama. When Ryan dropped out of the campaign after his "sealed" divorce documents were to be opened for all the world to see (what's the point in sealing them?), the Illinois GOP, in a staggering display of stupidity, tapped Alan Keyes to take Ryan's place. Though I like Keyes, I thought the smart move was to go with the runner up in the primary, Raushenberger, and throw all support behind him. The result of the GOP decision was disastrous and now look where we are.
Now, Raushenberger is vying for state senator and recently, following a debate or interview, apologized for having called "gay marriage" abnormal. My question is why would anyone apologize for speaking the truth? I think Raushy is a bright guy, but I think he should have stood firmly behind what I'm sure he knows is true. The issue of normalcy is separate from what the homo lobby sees as civil rights. Though the latter is debatable (barely), the former is a self-evident fact.
Hostage Crisis
The current blather from the White House and Dem leadership is that the Republicans are holding the middle class tax cuts hostage in order to benefit the wealthy. This level of gall should not be surprising to anyone. It has constantly been said by the same people that the Bush tax cuts were unfunded, as if funding is necessary to slash taxes. The fact is that spending should have been cut at the same time, and current spending should never have been implemented. The lefty point of view is what is known as "bass-ackwards". There should have been no spending that was not within the current levels of incoming revenues. No doubt spending was done with the aim of having as much of the Bush cuts lapse as could be gotten away with.
But to suggest that it is the Republicans who are holding the cuts hostage is nonsense. The tax rates are what they are to the extent Bush was able to get them reduced, which means also to the limits of time he was able to secure. People with actual brain matter understand that letting the cuts expire is a tax hike. The right wants everyone to continue benefitting from the current rate, particularly now during bad economic times, and that would include those with the greatest impact on job creation. The left prefers the lie that those people should be footing the bill for whatever wacky federal expenditure the Dems can dream up. But they don't care enough about the middle class, or those lower who no longer had to pay since the Bush cuts went into effect, to allow the greatest producers to keep what they've earned. So it is Obama & Co. who is REALLY holding the middle class cuts hostage. The bastards.
Where's The Outrage?
I just heard a story in the past couple of days that Obama is looking for ways to scrutinize our internet conversations in an attempt to head off terrorist activity. It seems that the baddies have taken to using the world wide web to communicate and do so by extreme routing methods that make getting a warrant useless. Hmmmm. Didn't we hear all sorts of wailing over similar actions by Bush and his security people when they sought to tap certain phone calls? Why aren't those same people whining about Obama hacking into emails and tweets and such?
It was never about civil rights and the right to privacy and other such things during the Bush years. It was about Bush-bashing, plainly and simply. With the Dems we've had the great misfortune to suffer over the past twenty years or so, let no one believe that any of them give a flying rat's patoot about anything other than gaining and maintaining power.
Bear Down
Allow me to take this opportunity to puff out the chest in celebration of the dominance of the Chicago Bears. OK, OK, back off. They look like crap much of the time with just enough stuff to stay in the game to allow a big play to win the day. Detroit doesn't know how to win, Dallas ain't America's team and Green Bay just beat the crap out of themselves on the Monday Night stage.
But we're 3-0 and that's all that matters right now. What's more, with the way the New York looks, together with some starters being injured, 4-0 seems more than likely. At that point, the Bears will be believing they can win for real and hopefully have their downsides pushed upwards enough to do so. I'm not totally on the bandwagon yet (though I am always in their corner), but I'm definitely driving right behind them.
Hey Mark! How 'bout dem Chiefs?
Steve Raushenberger came in second in the Illinois GOP primary vote for US Senator to Jack Ryan, whose opponent wound up being one Barack Hussein Obama. When Ryan dropped out of the campaign after his "sealed" divorce documents were to be opened for all the world to see (what's the point in sealing them?), the Illinois GOP, in a staggering display of stupidity, tapped Alan Keyes to take Ryan's place. Though I like Keyes, I thought the smart move was to go with the runner up in the primary, Raushenberger, and throw all support behind him. The result of the GOP decision was disastrous and now look where we are.
Now, Raushenberger is vying for state senator and recently, following a debate or interview, apologized for having called "gay marriage" abnormal. My question is why would anyone apologize for speaking the truth? I think Raushy is a bright guy, but I think he should have stood firmly behind what I'm sure he knows is true. The issue of normalcy is separate from what the homo lobby sees as civil rights. Though the latter is debatable (barely), the former is a self-evident fact.
Hostage Crisis
The current blather from the White House and Dem leadership is that the Republicans are holding the middle class tax cuts hostage in order to benefit the wealthy. This level of gall should not be surprising to anyone. It has constantly been said by the same people that the Bush tax cuts were unfunded, as if funding is necessary to slash taxes. The fact is that spending should have been cut at the same time, and current spending should never have been implemented. The lefty point of view is what is known as "bass-ackwards". There should have been no spending that was not within the current levels of incoming revenues. No doubt spending was done with the aim of having as much of the Bush cuts lapse as could be gotten away with.
But to suggest that it is the Republicans who are holding the cuts hostage is nonsense. The tax rates are what they are to the extent Bush was able to get them reduced, which means also to the limits of time he was able to secure. People with actual brain matter understand that letting the cuts expire is a tax hike. The right wants everyone to continue benefitting from the current rate, particularly now during bad economic times, and that would include those with the greatest impact on job creation. The left prefers the lie that those people should be footing the bill for whatever wacky federal expenditure the Dems can dream up. But they don't care enough about the middle class, or those lower who no longer had to pay since the Bush cuts went into effect, to allow the greatest producers to keep what they've earned. So it is Obama & Co. who is REALLY holding the middle class cuts hostage. The bastards.
Where's The Outrage?
I just heard a story in the past couple of days that Obama is looking for ways to scrutinize our internet conversations in an attempt to head off terrorist activity. It seems that the baddies have taken to using the world wide web to communicate and do so by extreme routing methods that make getting a warrant useless. Hmmmm. Didn't we hear all sorts of wailing over similar actions by Bush and his security people when they sought to tap certain phone calls? Why aren't those same people whining about Obama hacking into emails and tweets and such?
It was never about civil rights and the right to privacy and other such things during the Bush years. It was about Bush-bashing, plainly and simply. With the Dems we've had the great misfortune to suffer over the past twenty years or so, let no one believe that any of them give a flying rat's patoot about anything other than gaining and maintaining power.
Bear Down
Allow me to take this opportunity to puff out the chest in celebration of the dominance of the Chicago Bears. OK, OK, back off. They look like crap much of the time with just enough stuff to stay in the game to allow a big play to win the day. Detroit doesn't know how to win, Dallas ain't America's team and Green Bay just beat the crap out of themselves on the Monday Night stage.
But we're 3-0 and that's all that matters right now. What's more, with the way the New York looks, together with some starters being injured, 4-0 seems more than likely. At that point, the Bears will be believing they can win for real and hopefully have their downsides pushed upwards enough to do so. I'm not totally on the bandwagon yet (though I am always in their corner), but I'm definitely driving right behind them.
Hey Mark! How 'bout dem Chiefs?
Monday, September 06, 2010
Idiot-In-Chief At It Again
Yahoo ran this AP report by Darlene Superville of President Barely O'Braindead getting tough on the job situation.
I know. That's funny just saying it. As if he has any idea. It begins like this:
"A combative President Barack Obama rolled out a long-term jobs program Monday that would exceed $50 billion to rebuild roads, railways and runways, and coupled it with a blunt campaign-season assault on Republicans for causing Americans' hard economic times."
This means we'll see more money spent on those signs that inform us of how the slowdown on the freeways are brought to us by Barry & Co. It also means little else as the "stimulus" only ever lasts as long as our money is given back to us to "create" these jobs. First of all, I think, but am not sure, that the railways are owned by the railway companies. So why are we again subsidizing private industries? Why not lower corporate tax rates and let them fix their own tracks. They could surely work out details with all other entities that use the tracks or hope to ship via the rails.
Roads are a local matter, not a federal one. States and counties should be taking care of their own roads and if they continue to chase away business in their areas with Obama-like policies, then that's their own tough luck. Why should Delaware help pay for roads in New Mexico?
Only the runways might fall into some federal jurisdiction, but around here, you might have to talk to Richie Daley about that.
But then the end of that opener is par for Obama's course. Blame it all on the Republicans, as if Dems were pure as the driven snow. Doesn't matter what their part was in our current economic situation, and they had plenty to do with it, just blame the opposition. The question now is just how many of those who voted for the boob buys into that crap anymore.
Here's anothe gem from the article:
"Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, cautioned, "If we are going to get anything done, Republican cooperation, which has been all but non-existent recently, will be necessary.""
The fact that any Republican cooperation with this administration exists at all is reprehensible. Why would any self-respecting Republican care to jump on this train to hell only to claim his share of the righteous anger and frustration that is growing amongst the electorate? There are some Dems that are getting the message as well, at least as regards the plan for letting the Bush tax cuts expire, and one can only hope that they find the spine to stand firm.
We once again take the time to point out that while it is better to have an alternative at the ready (and the GOP does), one is not necessary to justify a loud "NO!" to the stupidity that is meant to pass for intelligent policy proposals by Obama, the brilliant one who has yet to provide any brilliance.
"He said Republicans have opposed virtually everything he has done to help the economy..." because his ideas are stupid and have failed. He proposes nothing new, but only his version of ideas that haven't worked for other countries that have tried them.
"...and have proposed solutions that have only made the problem worse." How can this be? They have no majority to implement anything. How can something that can't be implemented make anything worse? Has he, through his cohorts in Congress, allowed or tried anything like, say, what Mitch Daniels has done in Indiana? I don't think so. What a liar. But then the next line in the article is this:
""That philosophy didn't work out so well for middle-class families all across America," Obama told a cheering crowd at a labor gathering. "It didn't work out so well for our country. All it did was rack up record deficits and result in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.""
To what philosophy does he refer? The one that opposes his goofy ideas? THAT didn't work out so well? THAT is how we racked up record deficits? We didn't start racking up anything record-breaking until he and his Dem cohorts took control of Congress in '06! And anything they did was dwarfed after his sorry ass took a seat in the Oval Office! Hey Geoffrey! This is what a liar in the White House looks like!
Check this out:
""If I said fish live in the sea, they'd say no," Obama said."
The smart money says to question anything that comes our of this guy's mouth. If he told me my name, I'd check my ID.
Once again, we see that he appeared "Casual in brown slacks and open-collar white shirt with rolled-up sleeves," I have a tip for him: He could appear in overalls and a hard hat and I still wouldn't believe he is working hard. He should stop the posing and actually do something, preferably something that works, like cutting corporate tax rates to attract business.
Of course, here's the punchline:
"Obama said the proposal would be fully paid for. In an earlier briefing for reporters, administration officials said Obama would pay for the program by asking lawmakers to close tax breaks for oil and gas companies and multinational corporations."
So once again, he intends to hurt the sources of jobs by taxing them harder to pay for his little project that he thinks is going to stimulate job creation. But we can't be too hard on the man. It must be really hard to think with his head so far up his backside. In the meantime, the unemployment rate steps up a little higher.
I know. That's funny just saying it. As if he has any idea. It begins like this:
"A combative President Barack Obama rolled out a long-term jobs program Monday that would exceed $50 billion to rebuild roads, railways and runways, and coupled it with a blunt campaign-season assault on Republicans for causing Americans' hard economic times."
This means we'll see more money spent on those signs that inform us of how the slowdown on the freeways are brought to us by Barry & Co. It also means little else as the "stimulus" only ever lasts as long as our money is given back to us to "create" these jobs. First of all, I think, but am not sure, that the railways are owned by the railway companies. So why are we again subsidizing private industries? Why not lower corporate tax rates and let them fix their own tracks. They could surely work out details with all other entities that use the tracks or hope to ship via the rails.
Roads are a local matter, not a federal one. States and counties should be taking care of their own roads and if they continue to chase away business in their areas with Obama-like policies, then that's their own tough luck. Why should Delaware help pay for roads in New Mexico?
Only the runways might fall into some federal jurisdiction, but around here, you might have to talk to Richie Daley about that.
But then the end of that opener is par for Obama's course. Blame it all on the Republicans, as if Dems were pure as the driven snow. Doesn't matter what their part was in our current economic situation, and they had plenty to do with it, just blame the opposition. The question now is just how many of those who voted for the boob buys into that crap anymore.
Here's anothe gem from the article:
"Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, cautioned, "If we are going to get anything done, Republican cooperation, which has been all but non-existent recently, will be necessary.""
The fact that any Republican cooperation with this administration exists at all is reprehensible. Why would any self-respecting Republican care to jump on this train to hell only to claim his share of the righteous anger and frustration that is growing amongst the electorate? There are some Dems that are getting the message as well, at least as regards the plan for letting the Bush tax cuts expire, and one can only hope that they find the spine to stand firm.
We once again take the time to point out that while it is better to have an alternative at the ready (and the GOP does), one is not necessary to justify a loud "NO!" to the stupidity that is meant to pass for intelligent policy proposals by Obama, the brilliant one who has yet to provide any brilliance.
"He said Republicans have opposed virtually everything he has done to help the economy..." because his ideas are stupid and have failed. He proposes nothing new, but only his version of ideas that haven't worked for other countries that have tried them.
"...and have proposed solutions that have only made the problem worse." How can this be? They have no majority to implement anything. How can something that can't be implemented make anything worse? Has he, through his cohorts in Congress, allowed or tried anything like, say, what Mitch Daniels has done in Indiana? I don't think so. What a liar. But then the next line in the article is this:
""That philosophy didn't work out so well for middle-class families all across America," Obama told a cheering crowd at a labor gathering. "It didn't work out so well for our country. All it did was rack up record deficits and result in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.""
To what philosophy does he refer? The one that opposes his goofy ideas? THAT didn't work out so well? THAT is how we racked up record deficits? We didn't start racking up anything record-breaking until he and his Dem cohorts took control of Congress in '06! And anything they did was dwarfed after his sorry ass took a seat in the Oval Office! Hey Geoffrey! This is what a liar in the White House looks like!
Check this out:
""If I said fish live in the sea, they'd say no," Obama said."
The smart money says to question anything that comes our of this guy's mouth. If he told me my name, I'd check my ID.
Once again, we see that he appeared "Casual in brown slacks and open-collar white shirt with rolled-up sleeves," I have a tip for him: He could appear in overalls and a hard hat and I still wouldn't believe he is working hard. He should stop the posing and actually do something, preferably something that works, like cutting corporate tax rates to attract business.
Of course, here's the punchline:
"Obama said the proposal would be fully paid for. In an earlier briefing for reporters, administration officials said Obama would pay for the program by asking lawmakers to close tax breaks for oil and gas companies and multinational corporations."
So once again, he intends to hurt the sources of jobs by taxing them harder to pay for his little project that he thinks is going to stimulate job creation. But we can't be too hard on the man. It must be really hard to think with his head so far up his backside. In the meantime, the unemployment rate steps up a little higher.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Heinous Selfishness
Words cannot express the level of contempt that fills my heart upon hearing of such audacious selfishness described in this article.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Who Would Hire? Who Could?
The question of whether Obama and the boys are stupid or deliberately destructive came up in Eric's post below. This article from Investor's Business Daily lists ten reasons for the poor job situation in this country: (Hat tip--Wintery Knight)
-Executive orders and regulations promoting compulsory unionism.
-Obama's forced restructuring of GM.
-Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 (ObamaCare).
-Extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks — almost two years!
-American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009.
-Minimum wage laws.
-Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010.
-Moratorium on offshore oil drilling.
-Expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
-Obama's runaway spending.
Any number of the above list would make moving a company overseas a good idea. Why would anyone want to start a business or expand a business with all the above hanging over their heads? In the best economy, with everything laid out to the advantage of business, start-ups or expansion is risky. But now, corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars and are too nervous to make a move, with some considering China, of all places, as the place to set up shop. Does anyone seriously think that's preferred?
The thing is, the detrimental effect each and every point has had on employment and/or the economy had been foreseen. Only a lefty could be so blind as to believe any of these moves would have a positive effect. If Barry's the brilliant one we're so often told he is, then this has to be a deliberate attempt to screw things up. Rank stupidity is the only rational explanation.
But hey, the nation was warned. He had no record of wisdom upon which to gamble a vote back in November of '08. True, McCain is no Einstein. But would we have it THIS bad? Doubtful. Keep in mind also that this is only the arena of economics. Barry's shown nothing resembling brilliance in any other area of leadership either.
-Executive orders and regulations promoting compulsory unionism.
-Obama's forced restructuring of GM.
-Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 (ObamaCare).
-Extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks — almost two years!
-American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009.
-Minimum wage laws.
-Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010.
-Moratorium on offshore oil drilling.
-Expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
-Obama's runaway spending.
Any number of the above list would make moving a company overseas a good idea. Why would anyone want to start a business or expand a business with all the above hanging over their heads? In the best economy, with everything laid out to the advantage of business, start-ups or expansion is risky. But now, corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars and are too nervous to make a move, with some considering China, of all places, as the place to set up shop. Does anyone seriously think that's preferred?
The thing is, the detrimental effect each and every point has had on employment and/or the economy had been foreseen. Only a lefty could be so blind as to believe any of these moves would have a positive effect. If Barry's the brilliant one we're so often told he is, then this has to be a deliberate attempt to screw things up. Rank stupidity is the only rational explanation.
But hey, the nation was warned. He had no record of wisdom upon which to gamble a vote back in November of '08. True, McCain is no Einstein. But would we have it THIS bad? Doubtful. Keep in mind also that this is only the arena of economics. Barry's shown nothing resembling brilliance in any other area of leadership either.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
From My Inbox
Of all the "trash" emails I get, some are real treasures. This is one of them:
"The Postal Services created a stamp with a picture of President Obama on it. The Postal Service noticed that the stamp was not sticking to envelopes. This enraged the President, who demanded a full investigation.
After a month of testing and $1.73 million in congressional spending, a special Presidential commission presented the following findings:
1. The stamp is in perfect order.
2. There is nothing wrong with the glue.
3. People are spitting on the wrong side."
"The Postal Services created a stamp with a picture of President Obama on it. The Postal Service noticed that the stamp was not sticking to envelopes. This enraged the President, who demanded a full investigation.
After a month of testing and $1.73 million in congressional spending, a special Presidential commission presented the following findings:
1. The stamp is in perfect order.
2. There is nothing wrong with the glue.
3. People are spitting on the wrong side."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)