Monday, December 15, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Monday, December 08, 2008
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
I was never a big McCain supporter. I think he is liberal lite versus being a true conservative. Having Sarah Palin on the ticket was a bonus, but I don't think it makes up for the enthusiasm of really supporting the head of your ticket. I hope Republicans will return to conservative principles and start fighting a little harder for them. The Senate still is not filibuster proof and the House pickup was minimal. Let's hope some on the conservative side see that their values are worth fighting for. John McCain the moderate was supposed to appeal to independents and conservative Democrats. It doesn't look like that strategy worked...
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Saturday, October 04, 2008
link from Drudge
Friday, October 03, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.
You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.
BUT.... From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidental exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of "experience" in the Senate.That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work "experience," Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World ....143 days.
We all have to start somewhere. The Senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start. AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him.
We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the President of the United States of America?
Come on folks, we are not voting for the next American Idol !!
Saturday, September 20, 2008
PALIN: Our opponents, they have some strange ideas about raising taxes. To them, raising taxes, and Joe Biden said it again today, raising taxes is about patriotism. To the rest of America, that's not patriotism. Raising taxes is about killing jobs and hurting small businesses and making things worse. This isn't about anyone's patriotism. It's about Barack Obama's poor judgment.
RUSH: All right, hubba hubba hubba. She's always on message. You know what, brevity is the soul of wit. You know what she does? She just simplifies everything. She brings it down to the basic so everybody knows, understands what he's talking about. It's an amazing thing. Politicians want us to think that they have these highly complex jobs, require convoluted answers to straightforward questions.
And even when we're given these answers we are to unsophisticated and ignorant of their important jobs to understand exactly what all they have to do. This, of course, is why we couldn't have term limits. Sarah Palin's straightforward answers about her management style, about her view of why elected officials serve, who they serve, that's a threat. Her simplicity, her ability to make the complex understandable is what makes her a threat to the Washington establishment.
I mean, she sounds a little naive only because she's straightforward! She doesn't have all the gobbledygook political-speak that these other guys run around with, as I often note, brevity is the soul of wit. And it's also the essence of effective communication. She doesn't have a convoluted answer as to why she sought elected office.
Ask your average politician, "Why do you want to be president? Why did you want to represent your district?" Well, I've seen so much suffering and I wanted to give my time, my country has been so wonderful to me, and I wanted to pay something back, I wanted to give something back, I wanted to go up there and I wanted to make a difference because I care about the people and I care about the country," and on and on and on, flowery lingo.
She said, "Because the PTA was screwed up, my kids' schools was a mess and I needed to fix it." And then she kept climbing the ladder. Palin then went through -- this is Cedar Rapids yesterday -- went throughout list of Obama-Biden proposed tax increases.
Friday, September 19, 2008
The Leftmedia and their accomplices in political circles... er, maybe that’s the other way around. We get confused. Regardless, liberals have been gleefully criticizing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for “changing” her stance on global warming to sync with her running mate, John McCain, in her interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson. On the subject, Gibson asked, “Do you still believe that global warming is not man made?” Palin responded, “I believe that man’s activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change,” but it could also be natural planetary “warming and cooling trends.”
The exchange quickly became more intense. Gibson replied, “Yes, but isn’t it critical as to whether or not it’s man-made because what you do about it depends on whether it’s man-made.” After he added, “Color me a cynic, but I hear a little bit of change in your policy there... It sounds to me like you’re adapting your position to Sen. McCain’s,” Palin shot back, “I think you are a cynic because show me where I have ever said that there’s absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no affect, on climate change.”
Indeed, Palin’s position has not changed and it is essentially the position we in our humble shop have espoused for some time. The climate may be getting warmer and man may have something to do with it (though we doubt that part), but there is little that we consider conclusive proof of either assertion—assertions usually made by Leftists who are simply aiming for more government regulation.
from the Patriot Post
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Friday, September 05, 2008
Monday, September 01, 2008
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Russian into Georgia
On Tuesday, Russia agreed to a cease-fire after five days of fighting in the former Soviet republic of Georgia and its breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The cease-fire plan was the brainchild of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who pragmatically declared, “We don’t yet have peace.” Indeed, Russian forces continue to advance into Georgia despite the cease-fire agreement, and a third of the country’s territory is now under Russian control.
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili agreed to the truce in principal, but expressed concern that it does not include any reference to Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia or Abkhazia, and that the agreement restricts the movement of Georgia’s military within the country’s own borders. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has traveled to Tbilisi where she will attempt to further develop and refine the cease-fire agreement between Georgia and Russia, but without the threat of U.S. military action, the Russian Bear knows that it can defy any agreement with impunity.
Russia’s military adventures in Georgia have been portrayed in the U.S. media as the result of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s Napoleonic ambitions, but the truth is more complicated. The ethnic regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia broke away from Georgia in 1992 with Russian support. But Georgia has never relinquished its claims of sovereignty, and President Saakashvili provided the kindling for the current conflict when he sent troops into South Ossetia on 7 August in an attempt to bring the region back under Georgian control. The majority of South Ossetians are Russian citizens holding Russian passports, so Moscow’s forceful response to the Georgian incursion was predictable. What was also predictable (though perhaps it did not occur to President Saakashvili) was that Russia would use Georgia’s act of aggression as a pretext for escalating the conflict beyond South Ossetia’s borders and invading Georgia itself. It is at this point that the differing views on the conflict (Russia as the victim vs. Russia as the bully) begin to converge: Georgia did in fact provoke a Russian military response by invading South Ossetia and killing civilians there (though the confirmed death toll was in the dozens, not thousands as Russia claims), and Russia has in fact taken advantage of the situation to once again put Russian boots on Georgian soil in a sort of Soviet Union redux.
None of this discounts the fact that Russia has imperialist ambitions in Eastern Europe. In the past week, Russia warned the former Soviet bloc countries of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland that they would “pay” for criticizing Russia’s actions in Georgia. And there can be little doubt that Prime Minister Putin intends to punish Georgia for its rapprochement with the West and its aspirations for NATO membership. However, by invading South Ossetia, President Saakashvili conceded the moral high ground early and ensured that his chief ally, U.S. President George W. Bush, would find himself in a very difficult position. Far from being “slow to act” or “timid,” President Bush knows that history will record that Georgia pulled the trigger first, however disproportionate Russia’s response.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
A president's pension currently is $191,300 per year, until he is 80 years old.
Assuming the next president lives to age 80.
Sen. McCain would receive ZERO pension as he would reach 80 at the end of two terms as president.
Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years after two terms and would receive $4,973,800 in pension.
Therefore it would certainly make economic sense to elect McCain in November. How's that for non partisan thinking???
Monday, August 11, 2008
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Friday, August 08, 2008
Thursday, August 07, 2008
*I'm voting Democrat because 'freedom of speech' is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.*I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they NOW think we're good people.
*I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
*I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all 'death row' inmates alive.
*I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should NOT be allowed to make profits for themselves''. They need to 'break even' and give the rest away to the government for 'redistribution' as THEY see fit.
* I'm voting Democrat because I believe three or four pointy headed elitist liberals need to 'rewrite' the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.
* I'm voting Democrat because I believe that when theterriorist don't have to hide from us over THERE, when they come over HERE, I don't want to have any guns in the house to fight them off.
* I'm voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.
* I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are 'obscene', but the GOVERNMENT TAX of gas at 15% isn't !!
Monday, August 04, 2008
A most interesting and foreboding letter.
From Richmond Times-Dispatch, Monday, July 7, 2008 ~
Dear Editor, Times-Dispatch:
Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate
my independence day, and on July 4 I celebrate America's. This year is
special, because it marks the 40Th anniversary of my independence.
On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba, and a few months later, I was
in the United States to stay . That I happened to arrive in Richmond on
Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.
I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year
rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In
the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba neede d a change, and they were
right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive
When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the
old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his
friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the
farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all,
everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all,
everyone said, 'Praise the Lord.' And when the young leader said, 'I will be
for change and I'll bring you change,' everyone yell ed, 'V iva Fidel!'
But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns
went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was
equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone
received their free education, it was worth no t hing. By the time the press
noticed, it was too late, because they were now worki ng for him. By the
time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple
of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than
a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call
those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate
Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.
Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised
change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it
Manuel Alvarez, Jr.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Perennial Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas (the grandfather, incidentally, of Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas), echoed that sentiment: “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
We are much closer to that day in 2008.
Obama insists we have “an economy that is out of balance, tax policies have been badly skewed, and wages and incomes have flatlined.” To resolve this he says we need a “tax policy making sure that everybody benefits, fair distribution, a restoration of balance in our tax code, money allocated fairly—we’re going to capture some of the nation’s economic growth... and reinvest it.”
Obama says that free enterprise is nothing more than “Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself... tempting idea, because it doesn’t require much thought or ingenuity.”
Obamanomics is nothing more than a Marxist echo, and Obama himself a “useful idiot,” a Western apologist for socialist political and economic agendas advocating Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism.
from the Patriot Post
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
"Barack has been in Europe, as you know, and they have gone wild for him.
How's it being perceived in the USA.
Are people happy about it, think he is showing off, or glad that he is showing he can do foreign politics.
"the masses showed up they still believe in america that dream lives on in human hearts
its about time for a super hero to show up and save the world
here he is now it is up to us
support the light focus all over europe lets hear it for the rainbow tour for real powerful stuff
the kind of huge truth the media cannot shape like katrina we saw it -
we felt it change is needed he has arrived believe what u know america
Saturday, July 26, 2008
January 2007—“And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don’t know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”
July 2007—“Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, ‘Well, even in September, we’re going to need more time.’ So we’re going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president’s plan... My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.”
September 2007—“After putting an additional 30,000 troops in... we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we’re back where we were 15 months ago... It is a course that will not succeed.”
January 2008—“I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.”
Now: “What I said was even at the time of the debate of the surge, was if you put 30,000 troops in, of course it’s going to have an impact. There’s no doubt about that.”
from the Patriot Post
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
on Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ETDrudge Report
An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama.The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'MORE In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.' NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]
A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.'
Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial. 'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'
Developing... The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress." Even more heartening has been progress that's not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale.
In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future. Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we've had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely. I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
The stars who deserve media attention are not the ones who have lavish weddings on TV but the ones who patrol the streets of Mosul even after two of their buddies were murdered and their bodies battered and stripped for the sin of trying to protect Iraqis from terrorists. We put couples with incomes of $100 million a year on the covers of our magazines. The noncoms and officers who barely scrape by on military pay but stand on guard in Afghanistan and Iraq and on ships and in submarines and near the Arctic Circle are anonymous as they live and die.” —Ben Stein Source: The Patriot Post
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
The Bush administration is capitulating completely to environmentalists with this listing, which will likely have no effect on polar bears but could have a very detrimental effect on our economy. For example, Persuading Congress to authorize drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been difficult enough without adding a false alarm about polar bears to existing roadblocks. Besides, global warming may or may not be happening, and the same may be true of a decline in the population of polar bears, but $200 a barrel for oil may be the price we pay for rash decisions. Meanwhile, look for the Australian jellyfish to be the Gulf of Mexico’s “endangered” animal to stop drilling there too.
from the Patriot Post
Friday, May 16, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Friday, May 09, 2008
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Friday, May 02, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Saturday, April 26, 2008
from the Patriot Post
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Hi Group......facts speak for themselves.....
While watching a focus group of Democrats who reviewed the recent debate in Vegas, for the most part, all of them bashed Bush over and over again on how he is out for his millionaire friends and the big oil companies and he has totally forgotten or disregarded the little guy. I decided to look back on the tax tables to see if there is any truth to what they said and the media keeps stating as fact, "Bush is only out for the rich in this country. Based on using the actual tax tables (see link below), here are some examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for both singles and married couples. so let's see if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich.http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008 (2nd line)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 30K- tax - 4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 60K - tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If any democrat is elected, ALL of them say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie the Sting with Paul Newman, you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened. Now this is effective (maybe not honest) marketing or maybe a better word is brain washing.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Theo Caldwell, National Post (Canada) Wednesday, December 26, 2007
An obvious choice can be unnerving. When the apparent perfection of one option or the unspeakable awfulness of another makes a decision seem too easy, it is human nature to become suspicious.
This instinct intensifies as the stakes of the given choice are raised. American voters know no greater responsibility to their country and to the world than to select their president wisely. While we do not yet know who the Democrat and Republican nominees will be, any combination of the leading candidates from either party will make for the most obvious choice put to American voters in a generation. To wit, none of the Democrats has any business being president.
This pronouncement has less to do with any apparent perfection among the Republican candidates than with the intellectual and experiential paucity evinced by the Democratic field. "Not ready for prime time," goes the vernacular, but this does not suffice to describe how bad things are. Alongside Hillary Clinton, add Barack Obama's kindergarten essays to an already confused conversation about Dennis Kucinich's UFO sightings, dueling celebrity endorsements and who can be quickest to retreat from America's global conflict and raise taxes on the American people, and it becomes clear that these are profoundly unserious individuals.
To be sure, there has been a fair amount of rubbish and rhubarb on the Republican side (Ron Paul, call your office), but even a cursory review of the legislative and professional records of the leading contenders from each party reveals a disparity akin to adults competing with children.
For the Republicans, Rudy Giuliani served as a two-term mayor of New York City, turning a budget deficit into a surplus and taming what was thought to be an ungovernable metropolis. Prior to that, he held the third-highest rank in the Reagan Justice Department, obtaining over 4,000 convictions. Mitt Romney, before serving as governor of Massachusetts, founded a venture capital firm that created billions of dollars in shareholder value, and he then went on to save the Salt Lake City Olympics. While much is made of Mike Huckabee's history as a Baptist minister, he was also a governor for more than a decade and, while Arkansas is hardly a "cradle of presidents," it has launched at least one previous chief executive to national office. John McCain's legislative and military career spans five decades, with half that time having been spent in the Congress. Even Fred Thompson, whose excess of nonchalance has transformed his once-promising campaign into nothing more than a theoretical possibility, has more experience in the U.S. Senate than any of the leading Democratic candidates.
With just over one term as a Senator to her credit, Hillary Clinton boasts the most extensive record of the potential Democratic nominees. In that time, Senator Clinton cannot claim a single legislative accomplishment of note, and she is best known lately for requesting $1-million from Congress for a museum to commemorate Woodstock.
Barack Obama is nearing the halfway point of his first term in the Senate, having previously served as an Illinois state legislator and, as Clinton has correctly pointed out, has done nothing but run for president since he first arrived in Washington. Between calling for the invasion of Pakistan and fumbling a simple question on driver's licenses for illegal aliens, Obama has shown that he is not the fellow to whom the nation ought to hike the nuclear football.
John Edwards, meanwhile, embodies the adage that the American people will elect anyone to Congress -- once. From his $1,200 haircuts to his personal war on poverty, proclaimed from the porch of his 28,000-square-foot home, purchased with the proceeds of preposterous lawsuits exploiting infant cerebral palsy, Edwards is living proof that history can play out as tragedy and farce simultaneously.
Forget for a moment all that you believe about public policy. Discard your notions about taxes and Iraq, free trade and crime, and consider solely the experience of these two sets of candidates. Is there any serious issue that you would prefer to entrust to a person with the Democrats' experience, rather than that of any of the Republicans?
Does this decision not become upsettingly simple?
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Monday, January 07, 2008
“Senator Hillary Clinton’s Christmas commercial, showing various government programs as presents under a Christmas tree, was a classic example of calculated confusion in politics. Anyone who believes that the government can give the country presents has fallen for the oldest political illusion of all—the illusion of something for nothing. Santa Claus may turn out to be the real front-runner in the primaries, judging by the way candidates are vying with one another to give away government goodies to the voters. Santa Claus is bipartisan. The Bush administration [unveiled] its plan to rescue people who gambled and lost in the housing markets when the bubble burst. We now have a bipartisan tradition of the government stepping in to rescue people who engaged in risky behavior—whether by locating in the known paths of hurricanes in Florida or in areas repeatedly hit by wildfires over the years in California or by doing things that increase the probability of catching AIDS. Why not also rescue people who gambled away their life’s savings in Las Vegas? That would at least be consistent. Apparently the only people who are supposed to be responsible are the taxpayers—and they are increasingly made responsible for other people’s irresponsibility.” —Thomas Sowell
from the Patriot Post
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. She claimed she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers.
Because of this she understands how to pick up a corner blitz and knows the terminology of the Packers offense. A poll of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move.
Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Yet Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of Democrats polled agreed..