Saturday, January 30, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
There seems to be some dissention amongst Obama’s economic policy advisors.
(Did they even teach economics in “Community Organizing” school?)
Cause and Effect
If you go around in outfits like this:
Don’t be surprised if you end up like this:
Don’t be surprised if you end up like this:
I guess it's true about the cravings - that's pickled onions she's eating.
(That is the same woman, btw. It's Jennifer Ellison - British actress and model)
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Progressives say the Supreme Court’s rejection of McCain/Feingold will let foreigners interfere in US matters.
Uh, didn’t the Liberal members of the Court just recently defend the idea of looking at the decisions of foreign courts in order to make their decisions? I distinctly remember seeing Scalia debating against one of his colleagues on this subject on C-SPAN.
And doesn’t the whole idea of free speech and individual freedom mean that the people have the complete freedom to look at ANY information without government interference, and make up their minds as to the veracity of the arguments? (And as far as the influence of large amounts of spending, I remember reading that enormous spending doesn’t correlate very well with election results. It certainly didn’t help John Corzine in the recent New Jersey election.)
The Progressives aren’t interested in protecting free speech, they're interested in protecting “correct” speech. Does anyone really believe they would be interested in putting a muzzle on MSNBC? (That stands for MICROSOFT NBC folks, and the primary stock holder is General Electric.) MSNBC and the rest of the Democrat/Corporate Media Complex were exempt from the speech restrictions of McCain/Feingold.
And doesn’t the whole idea of free speech and individual freedom mean that the people have the complete freedom to look at ANY information without government interference, and make up their minds as to the veracity of the arguments? (And as far as the influence of large amounts of spending, I remember reading that enormous spending doesn’t correlate very well with election results. It certainly didn’t help John Corzine in the recent New Jersey election.)
The Progressives aren’t interested in protecting free speech, they're interested in protecting “correct” speech. Does anyone really believe they would be interested in putting a muzzle on MSNBC? (That stands for MICROSOFT NBC folks, and the primary stock holder is General Electric.) MSNBC and the rest of the Democrat/Corporate Media Complex were exempt from the speech restrictions of McCain/Feingold.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Liberals are starting to see the lunacy of MSNBC.
They usually repeat the mantra, “Yes MSNBC is biased, but so is Fox News”, but rational Liberals are starting to realize they can’t be compared.
Excerpt form: ‘Glenn Gavin on TV’ – The Miami Herald:
‘Watching coverage of the Massachusetts senatorial election Tuesday night, I wondered if MSNBC was getting ready to cut off its cable signal to the state. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, positively enraged that Massachusetts dared to elect a Republican, delivered two hours of nonstop bilious rage toward the state's voters, calling them "irrational" and "teabaggers," engaged in "a total divorce from reality," and hinting that they're vicious racists to boot.
‘If you watched CNN or Fox News last night, you got a balanced analysis of how Republican Scott Brown pulled off the political upset of the century (or, if you prefer, how Democrat Martha Coakley blew a dead solid electoral lock). Yes, I said Fox News, without irony. To be sure, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity made it clear they were rooting for Brown. But their shows also included a steady parade of liberal-leaning guests -- former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, former Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, Democratic party strategist Mary Anne Marsh, NPR commentator Juan Williams and radio host Alan Colmes. And pollster Frank Luntz interviewed a panel of two dozen or so Massachusetts voters, most of them Democrats, about how they voted and why. Practically every conceivable perspective on the election was represented.
‘And on MSNBC, you got practically every conceivable expression of venom against Brown and anybody who voted him. From Maddow's dark suspicions that the election was rigged -- she cited complaints about a grand total of six ballots out of about 2.25 million cast -- to Olbermann's suggestion in the video up above that the same Massachusets voters who went for Barack Obama by a 62-28 percent margin had suddenly realized they helped elect a black guy and went Republican in repentance, the network's coverage was idiotic, one-sided and downright ugly.’
Excerpt: from: Michael Landauer – Dallas Morning News:
‘Keith Olbermann attacked me for attacking him for attacking Scott Brown. He says I have infinite space to explain what lie I am referring to. The link I had made it clear. He was lying about Scott Brown reacting to a vulgar comment at one of his rallies. He shared the response of the campaign, but asserted that Brown responded to the comment. There's no evidence to back that up. And now he continues to assert that Scott Brown participates in a vulgar sexual act himself. Olbermann is quite aware of the vulgar definiton of the phrase "tea bagging" and he uses it repeatedly. Saying something you know is untrue (the tea "bag" references) and saying something without any proof is dishonest. Plus, it's just name-calling. Aren't we better than that?
‘And finally, he characterizes me as a far right-winger. Regular readers of this blog certainly got a chuckle out of that. (I spent part of my day, by the way, defending our recent criticism of Rush!)’
Excerpt form: ‘Glenn Gavin on TV’ – The Miami Herald:
‘Watching coverage of the Massachusetts senatorial election Tuesday night, I wondered if MSNBC was getting ready to cut off its cable signal to the state. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, positively enraged that Massachusetts dared to elect a Republican, delivered two hours of nonstop bilious rage toward the state's voters, calling them "irrational" and "teabaggers," engaged in "a total divorce from reality," and hinting that they're vicious racists to boot.
‘If you watched CNN or Fox News last night, you got a balanced analysis of how Republican Scott Brown pulled off the political upset of the century (or, if you prefer, how Democrat Martha Coakley blew a dead solid electoral lock). Yes, I said Fox News, without irony. To be sure, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity made it clear they were rooting for Brown. But their shows also included a steady parade of liberal-leaning guests -- former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, former Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, Democratic party strategist Mary Anne Marsh, NPR commentator Juan Williams and radio host Alan Colmes. And pollster Frank Luntz interviewed a panel of two dozen or so Massachusetts voters, most of them Democrats, about how they voted and why. Practically every conceivable perspective on the election was represented.
‘And on MSNBC, you got practically every conceivable expression of venom against Brown and anybody who voted him. From Maddow's dark suspicions that the election was rigged -- she cited complaints about a grand total of six ballots out of about 2.25 million cast -- to Olbermann's suggestion in the video up above that the same Massachusets voters who went for Barack Obama by a 62-28 percent margin had suddenly realized they helped elect a black guy and went Republican in repentance, the network's coverage was idiotic, one-sided and downright ugly.’
Excerpt: from: Michael Landauer – Dallas Morning News:
‘Keith Olbermann attacked me for attacking him for attacking Scott Brown. He says I have infinite space to explain what lie I am referring to. The link I had made it clear. He was lying about Scott Brown reacting to a vulgar comment at one of his rallies. He shared the response of the campaign, but asserted that Brown responded to the comment. There's no evidence to back that up. And now he continues to assert that Scott Brown participates in a vulgar sexual act himself. Olbermann is quite aware of the vulgar definiton of the phrase "tea bagging" and he uses it repeatedly. Saying something you know is untrue (the tea "bag" references) and saying something without any proof is dishonest. Plus, it's just name-calling. Aren't we better than that?
‘And finally, he characterizes me as a far right-winger. Regular readers of this blog certainly got a chuckle out of that. (I spent part of my day, by the way, defending our recent criticism of Rush!)’
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Welcome to the TWILIGHT ZONE!!!!!!!!
John Gibson just played a clip of Howard Dean making the bizarre claim that Scott Brown was elected because Coakley WASN’T LIBERAL ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!! I looked it up, and here’s the clip!
The Progressives’ rationalizations are INCREDIBLE. We are now learning that Massachusetts WAS NOT the uber-Progressive state we all thought it was. It has, all this time in fact, been nothing more than a backward, sexist, cesspool, of hayseed idiots!!!!!!!!!!!! BWAH, HA, HA, HA, HAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!
(Here's another example!)
The Progressives’ rationalizations are INCREDIBLE. We are now learning that Massachusetts WAS NOT the uber-Progressive state we all thought it was. It has, all this time in fact, been nothing more than a backward, sexist, cesspool, of hayseed idiots!!!!!!!!!!!! BWAH, HA, HA, HA, HAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!
(Here's another example!)
The Power of the Democrat Media Complex (via @michaelemlong on Twitter)
Excerpt:
“No, the simple fact was that media deliberately and malevolently sustained a false caricature of Bush in its pages and on its broadcasts in order to bog down the leader of the free world when he needed all the help he could get, and a time when the country was in great danger. The continuum of media-legitimized Bush hatred directly resulted in the Obama candidacy which was framed by the media as the antidote to Bush’s ‘toxicity.’
“One year into the Obama Administration, one thing is clear. The American presidency is a tough job. One can only wonder how much more successful President Bush’s presidency could have been if the media mandarins weren’t hell bent on providing a pathway for their favored Democrats to regain power. Now that the Democrats control everything it’s interesting to note how closely Obama is toeing Bush’s line on the war in Afghanistan, and how unsuccessful the new president is in rationalizing giving rights to enemy combatants. Maybe Bush wasn’t so dumb after all.
“That’s what I’ve thought all along. A year after he left office, it looks more and more like others will now not only start appreciating our 43rd president, they might start wishing they helped him when he had the toughest job in the world and they could only wish him ill.
“Once again: thanks, President Bush.”
“No, the simple fact was that media deliberately and malevolently sustained a false caricature of Bush in its pages and on its broadcasts in order to bog down the leader of the free world when he needed all the help he could get, and a time when the country was in great danger. The continuum of media-legitimized Bush hatred directly resulted in the Obama candidacy which was framed by the media as the antidote to Bush’s ‘toxicity.’
“One year into the Obama Administration, one thing is clear. The American presidency is a tough job. One can only wonder how much more successful President Bush’s presidency could have been if the media mandarins weren’t hell bent on providing a pathway for their favored Democrats to regain power. Now that the Democrats control everything it’s interesting to note how closely Obama is toeing Bush’s line on the war in Afghanistan, and how unsuccessful the new president is in rationalizing giving rights to enemy combatants. Maybe Bush wasn’t so dumb after all.
“That’s what I’ve thought all along. A year after he left office, it looks more and more like others will now not only start appreciating our 43rd president, they might start wishing they helped him when he had the toughest job in the world and they could only wish him ill.
“Once again: thanks, President Bush.”
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
MSNBC commentators analyze the Senate race in Massachusetts:
Scott Brown is "an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women" ...
Wow, that was insightful!
Wow, that was insightful!
Will MSNBC get a ratings bump?
If Brown wins today, I might be tempted to tune in to see the “Captain Queegs” rolling their metal balls.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Where the money is - update!
Holy Moly! Intrade is currently showing Brown ahead of Coakley – 54.5 to 45.4! I hope it holds!
Friday, January 15, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
At last, someone who knows where the REAL threat lies!
That’s right folks – all this time we’ve been worried about “Islamic” terrorism – but what we really should have been worried about is Baptists, tea-partiers, and pro-lifers – that’s where the REAL danger lies. Good thing Obama’s TSA nominee realizes this. Now he can focus our resources on protecting us from renegade Baptists.
In Defense of Tea Parties - Tunku Varadarjan
Go here for the entire article. I liked this excerpt:
"Perhaps the Obama administration has finally driven this point home, as it has been an object lesson in how the party of big government is really in bed with big business, giving it all the bailouts and favors."
"Perhaps the Obama administration has finally driven this point home, as it has been an object lesson in how the party of big government is really in bed with big business, giving it all the bailouts and favors."
Friday, January 8, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Monday, January 4, 2010
Can you spot the Rich Guy? (Or, "Why you should be a mucisian")
To quote David Letterman (about another couple), “If these two kids can’t make it, where’s the hope for the rest of us?”
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Only for those that like sexy petite Asian ladies with glasses, micro-mini skirts, and alabaster legs.
This is a blatant attempt to use “The Other McCain” “Rule Number 5” in order to boost blog traffic. Also, I stole the picture from “BUGBOY” – so in order to have a clear conscious (and to take advantage of “Rule Number 2”); you’ll have to go to his site to see the rest of the pictures.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
"Republics vs. Democracies" (via @davidrand on Twitter)
A very good article, here are a few selections:
...
Most of the Founders agreed on that point, that “pursuit of happiness” necessarily included the right to property. Such private property, Joseph Warren noted in 1775, is natural and necessary to an individual‘s freedom:
That personal freedom is the natural right of every man, and that property, or an exclusive right to dispose of what he has honestly acquired by his own labor, necessarily arises therefrom, are truths which common sense has placed beyond the reach of contradiction.
(Omission of the term property from the phrase, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” can be linked to the omission of an entire paragraph from Jefferson’s original draft, which castigates George III for condoning and encouraging the slave trade. The paragraph, and possibly even the term property from the phrase, were dropped from the final version to oblige the sensibilities of the southern delegates to the Continental Congress, many of whom were slave owners and who regarded slaves as real property. Northern delegates could not countenance the inclusion of slaves as property. Jefferson, though a slave owner, was an advocate of the abolition of slavery. But, this is entirely another issue.)
It is apparent that Jefferson’s phrasing is not broad enough for modern politicians and political commentators to admit. Or perhaps it is so broad it is beyond their cognitive abilities to grasp, just as the perception of a mountain is impossible to the epistemology of an ant. It is unfortunate that the term was omitted, because its retention might have saved the nation much grief, turmoil and bloodshed. The force and sanctity of its presence in the Declaration might have carried over into the Constitution itself, and served as a check on the ambitions and usurpations of several generations of elected altruists, humanitarians, and other property thieves.
…
Democracy, whether pure or directly participatory (as in ancient Greece or New England), or via national plebiscite, is simply mob rule. Politely defined: majority rule. We have what could be said to be a representative government, but what is the chief function of our representatives, as opposed to their perceived function? Their actual, intended function was to serve as guardians of individual rights. Their perceived function, at least for the last century or so, is to patronize the real or imagined wants of the majority and to deliver them through coercive and confiscatory legislation.
…
John Adams, as have many others, warned against the temptation of democracy:
[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.
This is an apt description of the current state of affairs.
…
Perhaps, in 2010, we shall see the concrete differences described by Williams, Adams, Jefferson and so many others. The Tea Parties of 2009, hopefully, were but a prelude to a determined campaign to recover the republic created by the Founders.
...
Most of the Founders agreed on that point, that “pursuit of happiness” necessarily included the right to property. Such private property, Joseph Warren noted in 1775, is natural and necessary to an individual‘s freedom:
That personal freedom is the natural right of every man, and that property, or an exclusive right to dispose of what he has honestly acquired by his own labor, necessarily arises therefrom, are truths which common sense has placed beyond the reach of contradiction.
(Omission of the term property from the phrase, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” can be linked to the omission of an entire paragraph from Jefferson’s original draft, which castigates George III for condoning and encouraging the slave trade. The paragraph, and possibly even the term property from the phrase, were dropped from the final version to oblige the sensibilities of the southern delegates to the Continental Congress, many of whom were slave owners and who regarded slaves as real property. Northern delegates could not countenance the inclusion of slaves as property. Jefferson, though a slave owner, was an advocate of the abolition of slavery. But, this is entirely another issue.)
It is apparent that Jefferson’s phrasing is not broad enough for modern politicians and political commentators to admit. Or perhaps it is so broad it is beyond their cognitive abilities to grasp, just as the perception of a mountain is impossible to the epistemology of an ant. It is unfortunate that the term was omitted, because its retention might have saved the nation much grief, turmoil and bloodshed. The force and sanctity of its presence in the Declaration might have carried over into the Constitution itself, and served as a check on the ambitions and usurpations of several generations of elected altruists, humanitarians, and other property thieves.
…
Democracy, whether pure or directly participatory (as in ancient Greece or New England), or via national plebiscite, is simply mob rule. Politely defined: majority rule. We have what could be said to be a representative government, but what is the chief function of our representatives, as opposed to their perceived function? Their actual, intended function was to serve as guardians of individual rights. Their perceived function, at least for the last century or so, is to patronize the real or imagined wants of the majority and to deliver them through coercive and confiscatory legislation.
…
John Adams, as have many others, warned against the temptation of democracy:
[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.
This is an apt description of the current state of affairs.
…
Perhaps, in 2010, we shall see the concrete differences described by Williams, Adams, Jefferson and so many others. The Tea Parties of 2009, hopefully, were but a prelude to a determined campaign to recover the republic created by the Founders.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)