Every once in awhile, you see examples of bad parenting. In my line of work, I see it all the time. But this is one of the FUCKEDEST things I ever saw:
At the end of watching this, I find myself tearing up with little Jonathan. How anyone could justify messing with a little kid's emotions like that, ON FUCKING CHRISTMAS, is beyond imagination.
If the folks over at Engadget and Microsoft hadn't taken steps to make sure this was corrected, I'd hook him up myself.
Sorry, I don't normally let loose it like this... I just don't fucking understand how anyone can be this cruel to someone they purport to love. I really think that these morons need to be locked up for this asshattery.
Word.
Those of you wishing to follow the story, take the jump.
2.27.2008
Once again the Democrats are forcing the costs of their political aspirations upon us
The Democrats are at it again, trying to buy votes on the wave of financial ignorance fostered by the US sheeple. The Democrat Party has its panties in a bunch that oil companies "raked in record profits" last year. Well, we all know what that means, don't we? It's time to plunder! After all, the only way Democrats can make a career out of their political aspirations is to buy votes from those too stupid or apathetic to be responsible for themselves. So, the Democrat-controlled House passes some $18B in taxes on those profits.
Profits alone don't show the entire financial picture. Of more importance to the big picture are the profit margins. But it's difficult to make myrmidons that vote Democrat understand that. So let me explain:
So, let's have a short exercise, shall we?
Let's say Poxblog Oil Co had gross revenues of $1M in 2007. Poxblog Oil's business costs (what they spent to bring in that megabuck) was $900,000.
Now, let's say that Poxblog Oil sold twice as much in 2008. That means that their total gross revenue was $2M. Let's also say that it also cost them twice as much to make that revenue, or $1,800,000. That leaves them with $200,000 profit.
Holy shit! Profits have doubled. Time to plunder/levy taxes/buy votes!
But wait. Poxblog's 2008 profit margin is $200,000 / $2,000,000 * 100%, or... wait for it... 10%. Somehow, profits have doubled, but profit margins haven't changed.
From Neal Boortz in 2005:
Hitting the high achievers the hardest slows down the momentum of our economy right at it's very foundation.
These taxes will be passed on the customer, just like they are every time. And it will hurt the low-income people the most... you know... the very people that Democrats purport to protect?
These are SIMPLE, straightforward concepts. Regardless, I'm sure that your average Democrat couldn't explain them. Nor would they care too, because it's they who are screaming the loudest that profits are up. It's these people legislating to make a moneygrab. It's these people forcing YOU to pay for their political careers! And yet somehow this is less evil than groups of people working hard and having it pay off.
Profits alone don't show the entire financial picture. Of more importance to the big picture are the profit margins. But it's difficult to make myrmidons that vote Democrat understand that. So let me explain:
Profit = gross revenue - business costs
Profit margin = profit/gross revenue * 100%
So, let's have a short exercise, shall we?
Let's say Poxblog Oil Co had gross revenues of $1M in 2007. Poxblog Oil's business costs (what they spent to bring in that megabuck) was $900,000.
2007 profit = $1,000,000 - $900,000 = $100,000
2007 profit margin = $100,000 / $1,000,000 * 100% = 10%
Now, let's say that Poxblog Oil sold twice as much in 2008. That means that their total gross revenue was $2M. Let's also say that it also cost them twice as much to make that revenue, or $1,800,000. That leaves them with $200,000 profit.
Holy shit! Profits have doubled. Time to plunder/levy taxes/buy votes!
But wait. Poxblog's 2008 profit margin is $200,000 / $2,000,000 * 100%, or... wait for it... 10%. Somehow, profits have doubled, but profit margins haven't changed.
2008 profit = $2,000,000 - $1,800,000 = $200,000
2008 profit margin = $200,000 / $2,000,000 * 100% = 10%
From Neal Boortz in 2005:
When they read that oil company profits have gone up they have no educational basis upon which to balance the fact that oil company revenues have also gone up... thanks to the increase in the price of crude oil. Revenues go up. Profits go up. It's not really that hard to understand.Someone will now come along and point out that the oil company profit margins have been rising along with the profits themselves. They're right. You see, costs don't necessarily double when revenues do. There are some costs that remain fixed even when the prices for raw materials (crude oil) increase. This will mean that profit margins will also increase, though not anywhere near as much as profits themselves. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Hardly. Just where do you think the energy companies, including the oil companies, get the money they need to explore for new sources of oil, to build new refineries, and to conduct research on additional or alternate energy sources? That money comes from profits. If profits increase due to high demand met by a scarcity of product the oil companies will be in a position to use increased profits to expand production and to search for new sources of oil. If the government seizes these profits, as suggested by Hillary Clinton, then those dollars would not be available for energy company investments into expanding our energy resources.
Another source of funds for oil companies to use for exploration and the development of additional energy resources would be the money that comes from investors. These investors purchase shares of stock in oil companies because they believe that their investments will appreciate in value and, in some cases, will pay dividends. If the government bows to the paranoia and anti-capitalist ignorance of the state-educated masses and seizes those profits, what then will be the reason to invest in these oil companies?
Hitting the high achievers the hardest slows down the momentum of our economy right at it's very foundation.
These taxes will be passed on the customer, just like they are every time. And it will hurt the low-income people the most... you know... the very people that Democrats purport to protect?
These are SIMPLE, straightforward concepts. Regardless, I'm sure that your average Democrat couldn't explain them. Nor would they care too, because it's they who are screaming the loudest that profits are up. It's these people legislating to make a moneygrab. It's these people forcing YOU to pay for their political careers! And yet somehow this is less evil than groups of people working hard and having it pay off.
McCain takes the high road, Cunningham takes the low road...
So, yesterday Bill Cunningham of WLW 700 AM in Cincinnati opens for John McCain by making some low blows at Barack Obama. McCain takes the high road, accepting responsibility for Cunningham's low-brow actions and apologizing to Senator Obama. Next thing you know, Cunningham proclaims to be voting for Hillary Clinton.
Clown. Apparently, Cunningham's presence was more about him that it was supporting John McCain.
Clown. Apparently, Cunningham's presence was more about him that it was supporting John McCain.
2.26.2008
Okay... while I'm ranting...
So here we are again... the lights are out in South Florida, and Fox News has to start wall-to-wall coverage of the event like the end of the world's about to arrive. They pulled this shit last week with an airplane with a gear-light indicator.
Reminds me of the local stations here in Oklahoma that go into Whopper-Doppler mode anytime moisture falls from the sky.
Look, I normally watch Fox News because as a libertarian (and regardless of what the lefties like to scream), I have found that they are the least biased of the networks (and, to be honest, they have the best looking female reporters). But that doesn't mean that I blindly support them in everything they do.
Gimme a break. I switched over to CNN (Clinton News Network), and was ready to shoot myself within 30 seconds of hearing Wolf Blitzer. Guess I'll just turn off the TV.
Reminds me of the local stations here in Oklahoma that go into Whopper-Doppler mode anytime moisture falls from the sky.
Look, I normally watch Fox News because as a libertarian (and regardless of what the lefties like to scream), I have found that they are the least biased of the networks (and, to be honest, they have the best looking female reporters). But that doesn't mean that I blindly support them in everything they do.
Gimme a break. I switched over to CNN (Clinton News Network), and was ready to shoot myself within 30 seconds of hearing Wolf Blitzer. Guess I'll just turn off the TV.
Is there something in the water in South Florida?
Okay, so Fox News is rolling continuing coverage of a widespread power outage in South Florida. Why, I don't know. Whatever.
The striking thing is that once again, sheeple display their stupidity by apparently ignoring a basic driving safety tenet (and state law in Florida):
But no... news shots of intersections down there show accidents being caused by people who can't be bothered to follow the law. It's even worse in groups, where mob rule and anonymity in numbers are what control people's minds. Hell, they even showed motorcycle cops rolling right through.
Remember, these are the same people who couldn't figure out simple ballots in West Palm Beach during the 2000 presidential election.
An afterthought: I'm hearing news stories where our schools go into some ridiculous state called "lockdown" every time someone cuts a loud fart. During these periods, apparently these schools act like prisons and won't release children to their parents. More stupid black & white decision making brought to you by people who can't think for themselves, yet are left in charge of teaching our children.
I'll tell you what: if someone had my children and wouldn't release them to me, there'd be hell to pay. All the more reason to home school.
The striking thing is that once again, sheeple display their stupidity by apparently ignoring a basic driving safety tenet (and state law in Florida):
Upon approaching a 4-way intersection governed by traffic lights that are not working, the intersection shall be treated as a 4-way stop by ALL directions of traffic.
But no... news shots of intersections down there show accidents being caused by people who can't be bothered to follow the law. It's even worse in groups, where mob rule and anonymity in numbers are what control people's minds. Hell, they even showed motorcycle cops rolling right through.
Remember, these are the same people who couldn't figure out simple ballots in West Palm Beach during the 2000 presidential election.
An afterthought: I'm hearing news stories where our schools go into some ridiculous state called "lockdown" every time someone cuts a loud fart. During these periods, apparently these schools act like prisons and won't release children to their parents. More stupid black & white decision making brought to you by people who can't think for themselves, yet are left in charge of teaching our children.
I'll tell you what: if someone had my children and wouldn't release them to me, there'd be hell to pay. All the more reason to home school.
2.24.2008
Fire & hillbillies just don't mix...
You'd think that people would learn after each winter/dry season in Oklahoma. But no. Once again, today we have raging grass fires everywhere. It's not like we have an abundance of natural causes, and it's not like these people have been warned that conditions are ripe for fires to be out of control.
But instead, it's way more important for Mountain William to set a pile of lawn waste alight on a windy, dry day and walk away from it. Or maybe Cletus can't be brought to not flick his smoke out the window. Next thing you know, we have a conflagration that destroys huge amounts of vegetation, wildlife, and property. Sometimes it even takes lives.
There are solutions to this mess. First, the state has to take a proactive role in just prohibiting all outside burning from October through March. I think that six months out of the year is enough for hillbillies who can't be inconvenienced to mulch or otherwise dispose of their waste to burn it off. Second, don't be so damned quick to remove burn bans just because it freaking rains. Fire weather depends on much more than the rainfall from last night. Third, state and local government needs to institute burn permits and inspections. Finally, more responsibility needs to be placed on those burning outdoors so that when their shit gets out of control, they are fined, jailed, and/or sued for it. Hell, in some areas that I frequent, cash-strapped city governments don't even fine these idiots when they burn during a burn ban. These morons need to be held responsible for the full cost of the fire protection services that are putting out the fires they cause.
Makes not a damn bit of sense to me.
But instead, it's way more important for Mountain William to set a pile of lawn waste alight on a windy, dry day and walk away from it. Or maybe Cletus can't be brought to not flick his smoke out the window. Next thing you know, we have a conflagration that destroys huge amounts of vegetation, wildlife, and property. Sometimes it even takes lives.
There are solutions to this mess. First, the state has to take a proactive role in just prohibiting all outside burning from October through March. I think that six months out of the year is enough for hillbillies who can't be inconvenienced to mulch or otherwise dispose of their waste to burn it off. Second, don't be so damned quick to remove burn bans just because it freaking rains. Fire weather depends on much more than the rainfall from last night. Third, state and local government needs to institute burn permits and inspections. Finally, more responsibility needs to be placed on those burning outdoors so that when their shit gets out of control, they are fined, jailed, and/or sued for it. Hell, in some areas that I frequent, cash-strapped city governments don't even fine these idiots when they burn during a burn ban. These morons need to be held responsible for the full cost of the fire protection services that are putting out the fires they cause.
Makes not a damn bit of sense to me.
2.21.2008
Quote for the day...
From historian Joseph Ellis's "Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation", here's what the founding fathers thought of democracy and democrats:
So, doesn't seem interesting that today's Democrat Party consists largely of people like this? Many thanks to Boortz for this one.
"... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'"
So, doesn't seem interesting that today's Democrat Party consists largely of people like this? Many thanks to Boortz for this one.
2.18.2008
Hilarious... but not really
Sitting here on my day off getting some chores done, I had to stop and watch a bit on Cavuto where a Democrat strategist was on with two economists (sorry, I don't remember any of their names) and Neil discussing Obama's and Hillary's budget plans. It wasn't pretty... kind of like a lamb going to the slaughter; the economists had a field day.
Folks, I'm not kidding when I say this: The Democrats want nothing more than to expand the entitlement state in order to buy more votes for themselves. Remember what I quoted a couple months ago about the the stability of great nations and the people voting themselves money out of the public largess? We're seeing that played out now.
I have a great plan with which we can put a real quick stop to this bullshit. Since the existence of government is borne by those who fund it, is it not fair that the weight of the vote of each constituent is proportional to how much each taxpayer pays in? What a way to keep checks on government thuggery! If someone wants to tax high-achievers disproportionately, then the high-achievers have a strong defense against it. After all, they're paying more for it.
Hell, this plan may even bring more money into the government in the form of donations from people wanting more say. It might even motivate lower achievers into achieving more. My goodness, coupled with the FairTax, this plan could super-energize the economy.
With the entitlement-based attitude most people have now, this will never happen.
Folks, I'm not kidding when I say this: The Democrats want nothing more than to expand the entitlement state in order to buy more votes for themselves. Remember what I quoted a couple months ago about the the stability of great nations and the people voting themselves money out of the public largess? We're seeing that played out now.
I have a great plan with which we can put a real quick stop to this bullshit. Since the existence of government is borne by those who fund it, is it not fair that the weight of the vote of each constituent is proportional to how much each taxpayer pays in? What a way to keep checks on government thuggery! If someone wants to tax high-achievers disproportionately, then the high-achievers have a strong defense against it. After all, they're paying more for it.
Hell, this plan may even bring more money into the government in the form of donations from people wanting more say. It might even motivate lower achievers into achieving more. My goodness, coupled with the FairTax, this plan could super-energize the economy.
With the entitlement-based attitude most people have now, this will never happen.
Looks like I'll be buying a book soon...
From page 409 of "The Bad Boy of Baltimore", a biography of H.L. Mencken by Marion Elizabeth Rodgers:
While I think that the downfall of America began with the ratification of the 17th Amendment, which nationalized the Senate, this is pretty spot on.
"By the mid-1930's, thanks to the New Deal, all that self-reliance had changed, prompting Mencken to declare: 'There is no genuine justice in any scheme of feeding and coddling the loafer whose only ponderable energies are devoted wholly to reproduction. Nine-tenths of the rights he bellows for are really privileges and he does nothing to deserve them.' Despite the billions spent on an individual, 'he can be lifted transiently but always slips back again.' Thus, the New Deal had been 'the most stupendous digenetic enterprise ever undertaken by man.... We not only acquired a vast population of morons, we have inculcated all morons, old or young, with the doctrine that the decent and industrious people of the country are bound to support them for all time. The effects of that doctrine are bound to be disastrous soon or late.'
When someone asked, "And what, Mr. Mencken, would you do about the unemployed?" He looked up with a bland expression. "We could start by taking away their vote," he said, deadpan. Mencken was not surprised when the majority disagreed. "There can be nothing even remotely approaching a rational solution of the fundamental national problems until we face them in a realistic spirit," he later reflected, and that was impossible so long as educated Americans remained responsive "to the Roosevelt buncombe."
While I think that the downfall of America began with the ratification of the 17th Amendment, which nationalized the Senate, this is pretty spot on.
2.17.2008
Bands of the 1990's...
What a wonderful decade in music. I've decided that the following is my Baker's Dozen of Favorite 90's Music Acts (stereotypically 90's acts only, in no particular order):
Alice in Chains
Smashing Pumpkins
Sneaker Pimps (with Kelli Dayton-Ali only)
Pearl Jam
Garbage
Alanis Morissette
The Prodigy
Live
Thrill Kill Kult
Portishead
Stone Temple Pilots
Rage Against the Machine (not their politics)
Nine Inch Nails
Alice in Chains
Smashing Pumpkins
Sneaker Pimps (with Kelli Dayton-Ali only)
Pearl Jam
Garbage
Alanis Morissette
The Prodigy
Live
Thrill Kill Kult
Portishead
Stone Temple Pilots
Rage Against the Machine (not their politics)
Nine Inch Nails
2.15.2008
'Splain somethin' to me...
So the Democrat Party is usually the one that champions the idea of scrapping the electoral college system for electing our president and electing our president through a national popular vote.
Why, then, aren't Democrat supporters smart enough to elect their presidential candidates directly by national popular vote? Moreover, why aren't Democrat supporters smart enough to elect their candidate through just a regular delegate system without fear that so-called super-delegates can just wipe out whatever choice they make?
Hmmm. Seems to me like the Democrat Party has once again confounded their constituency with smoke and mirrors. I reckon whatever they bought their voters' votes for was worth it to them.
Why, then, aren't Democrat supporters smart enough to elect their presidential candidates directly by national popular vote? Moreover, why aren't Democrat supporters smart enough to elect their candidate through just a regular delegate system without fear that so-called super-delegates can just wipe out whatever choice they make?
Hmmm. Seems to me like the Democrat Party has once again confounded their constituency with smoke and mirrors. I reckon whatever they bought their voters' votes for was worth it to them.
Just plain badass
Y'know... sometimes technology is leveraged in ways that are so freaking beautiful:
I can't wait for a laser bass to be put together.
I can't wait for a laser bass to be put together.
Boy... that's one classy lady...
By now, I'm sure y'all have heard about Jane Fonda's use of the C-word on a live national television broadcast. If not, have a look at this clip from NBC's The Today Show:
What's the reaction been? Some very calm reporting. You've got to remember, when I was told Jane Fonda said "C-word" on TV, I thought that they meant she said "Commie". After all, she is a leftist icon. And this is why she'll get away with this without much more than a slap on the wrist, if even that. I mean, she couldn't even apologize for her sexist remark in person... NBC had to trot out one of their people and come up with some half-ass deal.
Let me tell you, this was much worse than a Golf Channel saying the word "lynch" or Imus saying "nappy-headed ho's" (and I hate Imus). But remember, these people gave an opportunity for the media to put up stories about someone hating on those in their favored protected classes. Those kind of stories sell. But Jane Fonda... well, she is a member of the very protected left her slur was against.
Now, you might think that I'm being a touch ridiculous about all this, and perhaps I am. But damnit, I get tired of this bullshit double standard.
This is all the more reason to believe that today's sexism and racism are driven largely by people who (1) have no idea what they're talking about, (2) are looking to take advantage of the situation for their own gain, (3) won't shut the fuck up, and (4) are too naive or ignorant about the problem. In other words, if we could get those that bring gender and race into every consideration they make to stop, then racism and sexism would largely go away. Yes, I know there will always be people who will hate regardless. But the influence they have will go away through natural selection if we IGNORE those who hate but don't commit a crime, and PUNISH those who do commit crimes. You self-proclaimed progressive liberals who love to hate intelligent design should be able to understand this.
What's the reaction been? Some very calm reporting. You've got to remember, when I was told Jane Fonda said "C-word" on TV, I thought that they meant she said "Commie". After all, she is a leftist icon. And this is why she'll get away with this without much more than a slap on the wrist, if even that. I mean, she couldn't even apologize for her sexist remark in person... NBC had to trot out one of their people and come up with some half-ass deal.
Let me tell you, this was much worse than a Golf Channel saying the word "lynch" or Imus saying "nappy-headed ho's" (and I hate Imus). But remember, these people gave an opportunity for the media to put up stories about someone hating on those in their favored protected classes. Those kind of stories sell. But Jane Fonda... well, she is a member of the very protected left her slur was against.
Now, you might think that I'm being a touch ridiculous about all this, and perhaps I am. But damnit, I get tired of this bullshit double standard.
This is all the more reason to believe that today's sexism and racism are driven largely by people who (1) have no idea what they're talking about, (2) are looking to take advantage of the situation for their own gain, (3) won't shut the fuck up, and (4) are too naive or ignorant about the problem. In other words, if we could get those that bring gender and race into every consideration they make to stop, then racism and sexism would largely go away. Yes, I know there will always be people who will hate regardless. But the influence they have will go away through natural selection if we IGNORE those who hate but don't commit a crime, and PUNISH those who do commit crimes. You self-proclaimed progressive liberals who love to hate intelligent design should be able to understand this.
2.14.2008
Criminy...
One question for this morning: Just why in FUCK am I paying because the NFL, MLB, and NCAA can't keep their acts together?!
Of course, what I'm referring to is this increasingly popular habit for Congress to make inquests into the actions of these sanctioning bodies. Exactly where in the Constitution is it stated that Congress has the power to do any of this?
Look, if these idiots want to destroy their lives with drugs, I have no problem with it (this'll be covered in a future article). If someone violates the rules of the sanctioning body or the law, then let the sanctioning body or law enforcement take care of it. In other words, lawmakers, you have enough problems doing your jobs without extending yourselves into roles that you have no business being in. Go buy your votes back where you belong.
If "con" is the opposite of "pro", just what is the opposite of PROgress?
Of course, what I'm referring to is this increasingly popular habit for Congress to make inquests into the actions of these sanctioning bodies. Exactly where in the Constitution is it stated that Congress has the power to do any of this?
Look, if these idiots want to destroy their lives with drugs, I have no problem with it (this'll be covered in a future article). If someone violates the rules of the sanctioning body or the law, then let the sanctioning body or law enforcement take care of it. In other words, lawmakers, you have enough problems doing your jobs without extending yourselves into roles that you have no business being in. Go buy your votes back where you belong.
If "con" is the opposite of "pro", just what is the opposite of PROgress?
2.11.2008
Uh oh... watch out for the Citgo troll...
So from what I read on this AP story, Hugo Chavez is none to pleased with ExxonMobil's attempts to take their ball back.
What does Chavez expect? Chavez seized control of ExxonMobil's (and ConocoPhillips's and others) Orinoco assets in Venezuela. So, this newest move is tit for tat.
What's Chavez's reaction when he doesn't get his way? Throw a temper tantrum. Threaten to stop selling oil to the US. Oh boy... that'll kill us. The US is Venezuela's #1 customer, but the suppliers ahead and just behind Venezuela on the ranking chart will fall all over themselves to sell us even more oil. It wouldn't be a problem to make up the difference in short order. Keep in mind, too, that the US is part of this list, contributing some 4 times what we import from Canada.
Will all this mean that much? No, not really. What it will do is slightly increase oil prices for awhile, but they'll go back down as our importers correct the situation. After all, it's much easier for our importers to sell to us than it is for them to sell to other countries.
BTW, Chavez is not so dumb as to stop selling to the US. He'll cry for now, cause gas prices to go up for a little bit, and then he'll go away, just like the rest of the tinpot dictators. But when US oil exports account for 15-20% of Venezuela's GDP, it's not difficult to see who'll outlast who here.
Food for thought: Why is it that socialists like to blame conservatives for high gas prices, but Chavez, a socialists socialist, is more than willing to push up gas prices to serve himself?
Also to note, he's got the propaganda machine in full swing here... the US as an "empire" and "Mr. Danger".
Finally, if you'd like a more centered article about this, read here. Oh, and if you want play-by-play commentary on the situation, check out Citgo Boycott.
What does Chavez expect? Chavez seized control of ExxonMobil's (and ConocoPhillips's and others) Orinoco assets in Venezuela. So, this newest move is tit for tat.
What's Chavez's reaction when he doesn't get his way? Throw a temper tantrum. Threaten to stop selling oil to the US. Oh boy... that'll kill us. The US is Venezuela's #1 customer, but the suppliers ahead and just behind Venezuela on the ranking chart will fall all over themselves to sell us even more oil. It wouldn't be a problem to make up the difference in short order. Keep in mind, too, that the US is part of this list, contributing some 4 times what we import from Canada.
Will all this mean that much? No, not really. What it will do is slightly increase oil prices for awhile, but they'll go back down as our importers correct the situation. After all, it's much easier for our importers to sell to us than it is for them to sell to other countries.
BTW, Chavez is not so dumb as to stop selling to the US. He'll cry for now, cause gas prices to go up for a little bit, and then he'll go away, just like the rest of the tinpot dictators. But when US oil exports account for 15-20% of Venezuela's GDP, it's not difficult to see who'll outlast who here.
Food for thought: Why is it that socialists like to blame conservatives for high gas prices, but Chavez, a socialists socialist, is more than willing to push up gas prices to serve himself?
Also to note, he's got the propaganda machine in full swing here... the US as an "empire" and "Mr. Danger".
Finally, if you'd like a more centered article about this, read here. Oh, and if you want play-by-play commentary on the situation, check out Citgo Boycott.
2.09.2008
There are not words...
I like Rush so much because the members are among the best on their instruments (the whole achievement thing and all). But when something is this good, it brings tears to my eyes:
I was never a big fan of James Brown or Christina Aguilera, but this is what it is: a display that proves that Christina Aguilera is one of the great talents of our time.
I was never a big fan of James Brown or Christina Aguilera, but this is what it is: a display that proves that Christina Aguilera is one of the great talents of our time.
2.08.2008
Republican presidential campaign...
So, even as a libertarian, I was disappointed that Mitt Romney dropped out of the race yesterday. Why? Because I believe that he was truly the best candidate for president at this time. I'm not thrilled with his position on the FairTax and his history of instituting socialist health care schemes, but he is a businessman, and that's what we need right now.
That said, I think that this dropping out was very smart for at least two reasons. First, he is right that it is time to solidify a national campaign for president now, before the competition splinters the potential vote in manner that causes the Democrat Party's candidate to win. Second, he displayed to us that he is more interested in what the people need rather than what he wants. Do I believe all this politics? Not necessarily, but it's still better than what the Democrats have put up. I'll be looking for Mitt Romney again in 4-8 years.
In stark contrast to Mitt Romney's position of making moves to serve the people rather than his own interests are those firmly rooted in the right wing of the GOP. We're all well aware that John McCain isn't the conservative's conservative. But those that would rather have the Democrat than John McCain are STUPID ASSES. Look, we're on the cusp of having one of the most dangerous people in American politics elected president. It is now the time to unify behind McCain and push him forth. It's apparently what the people want right now, what with is large lead in the Republican primary and all. So, GOP, come down out of your ivory tower and start thinking about what your constituency wants.
There is plenty that doesn't thrill me about McCain's platform, such as his big-government solutions. But as a moderate Republican, he does have broad appeal spanning conservative Democrats and 2/3 of the Republican party. And he will not scuttle this country like another Clinton regime would.
People have asked me why, as a libertarian, I don't vote for the Libertarian Party candidate or even libertarian Republican candidate Ron Paul. I have a lot of admiration for much of the LP candidates' and Representative Paul's platforms. But their positions on the Iraq war turn me away. If we pull out of there now, those religious zealot nutcases WILL bring the war over here, much as they did on 9/11. Better to fight that war over there than on our own soil. Another reason is that I am terrified of the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Finally, this country has been sliding steadily to the left for the past 80 or so years. To move this country back to the center requires input from the right. Thus, I am voting for the Republican candidate this election.
That said, I think that this dropping out was very smart for at least two reasons. First, he is right that it is time to solidify a national campaign for president now, before the competition splinters the potential vote in manner that causes the Democrat Party's candidate to win. Second, he displayed to us that he is more interested in what the people need rather than what he wants. Do I believe all this politics? Not necessarily, but it's still better than what the Democrats have put up. I'll be looking for Mitt Romney again in 4-8 years.
In stark contrast to Mitt Romney's position of making moves to serve the people rather than his own interests are those firmly rooted in the right wing of the GOP. We're all well aware that John McCain isn't the conservative's conservative. But those that would rather have the Democrat than John McCain are STUPID ASSES. Look, we're on the cusp of having one of the most dangerous people in American politics elected president. It is now the time to unify behind McCain and push him forth. It's apparently what the people want right now, what with is large lead in the Republican primary and all. So, GOP, come down out of your ivory tower and start thinking about what your constituency wants.
There is plenty that doesn't thrill me about McCain's platform, such as his big-government solutions. But as a moderate Republican, he does have broad appeal spanning conservative Democrats and 2/3 of the Republican party. And he will not scuttle this country like another Clinton regime would.
People have asked me why, as a libertarian, I don't vote for the Libertarian Party candidate or even libertarian Republican candidate Ron Paul. I have a lot of admiration for much of the LP candidates' and Representative Paul's platforms. But their positions on the Iraq war turn me away. If we pull out of there now, those religious zealot nutcases WILL bring the war over here, much as they did on 9/11. Better to fight that war over there than on our own soil. Another reason is that I am terrified of the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Finally, this country has been sliding steadily to the left for the past 80 or so years. To move this country back to the center requires input from the right. Thus, I am voting for the Republican candidate this election.
2.07.2008
Another religion to not believe in
Remember a few weeks back when I talked about the Weather Channel crackpot climatologist who wanted to strip professional credentials from those that don't buy into the religion of global warming? Well, she's been one-upped.
Speaking of global warming, just how long did it take one of these warmers to blame the recent tornado outbreak on global warming? Enter stage very left: Lurch.
Nevermind that as per the NOAA that the number of violent tornadoes in the US has actually decreased since the over the last 60 years.
Speaking of global warming, just how long did it take one of these warmers to blame the recent tornado outbreak on global warming? Enter stage very left: Lurch.
Nevermind that as per the NOAA that the number of violent tornadoes in the US has actually decreased since the over the last 60 years.
The morning's anti-Hillary rant
I thought that conservative Oklahoma would have been smart enough to not vote for a socialist for the Democrat nod. I was wrong.
Anyhow, this morning I'm hearing that Hillary's campaign is tapped out. So tapped out that she had loan her campaign $5M from her personal funds. This leads me to two questions:
1. If she can't even run her primary campaign without having to make a moneygrab from somewhere else, how can we possibly expect her to not have to make moneygrabs if she's elected president?
2. If she's so worried about her vision of "equality" and making sure everyone has health care, why isn't she spending her millions buying health care for those that don't have it?
I'm also hearing that many of her campaign's top managers are working without pay, and have been for the last month. So, she's got millions, and people working for her aren't being paid? Don't Democrats usually complain about such income gaps? Hell, people that work for Hillary make less than the Walmart workers that Democrats seem to enjoying championing.
Think about it, people. It's not about what's right and what's wrong here... it's all about the big power grab. This women will stop at nothing to be elected president.
Anyhow, this morning I'm hearing that Hillary's campaign is tapped out. So tapped out that she had loan her campaign $5M from her personal funds. This leads me to two questions:
1. If she can't even run her primary campaign without having to make a moneygrab from somewhere else, how can we possibly expect her to not have to make moneygrabs if she's elected president?
2. If she's so worried about her vision of "equality" and making sure everyone has health care, why isn't she spending her millions buying health care for those that don't have it?
I'm also hearing that many of her campaign's top managers are working without pay, and have been for the last month. So, she's got millions, and people working for her aren't being paid? Don't Democrats usually complain about such income gaps? Hell, people that work for Hillary make less than the Walmart workers that Democrats seem to enjoying championing.
Think about it, people. It's not about what's right and what's wrong here... it's all about the big power grab. This women will stop at nothing to be elected president.
2.05.2008
One more thing on my mind this morning: Hillary cries again
Last time things were close, Hillary cried. Then she won the New Hampshire primary.
She cried again last night before Super Tuesday. I know this is a pipe dream, but I hope the voters aren't as dumb this time.
She cried again last night before Super Tuesday. I know this is a pipe dream, but I hope the voters aren't as dumb this time.
Today's 2-fer: The "erosion" of the middle class
Democrats, both in the political realm and the mainstream media, crow with great zeal about how the middle class is going away and that it's all the Republicans' and the evil rich's fault. Interesting. Let's start by looking at this video.
Now... we can see that all these middle-classers don't have it so bad. But Drew's video shows that the media and the Democrats want you to believe otherwise. Because they want to create an atmosphere of depair that they can make you believe that they can rescue us from. Another way that they can make us dependent on them. And you know what? Dependence is the opposite of independence, and independence means freedom and liberty. So, what they are wanting you to do is trade your freedom and liberty for some implied measure of security through dependence on them. You know, the big-government types who don't realize that government can't do much of anything right. What a bargain!
There are a couple of sad truths in all of this:
1. The middle class isn't struggling to survive; the middle class is struggling to buy more. After all, they have to impress their neighbors and families. This is closely related to the idea of living within one's means.
2. The US sheeple don't realize that those that they wish to vote into power to rescue them don't realize that cost of this unnecessary rescue will provide much more of an oppressive burden on them than does living as a responsible individual (or even as a slightly irresponsible individual). History bears this out. I urge you: don't help history repeat itself.
Now... we can see that all these middle-classers don't have it so bad. But Drew's video shows that the media and the Democrats want you to believe otherwise. Because they want to create an atmosphere of depair that they can make you believe that they can rescue us from. Another way that they can make us dependent on them. And you know what? Dependence is the opposite of independence, and independence means freedom and liberty. So, what they are wanting you to do is trade your freedom and liberty for some implied measure of security through dependence on them. You know, the big-government types who don't realize that government can't do much of anything right. What a bargain!
There are a couple of sad truths in all of this:
1. The middle class isn't struggling to survive; the middle class is struggling to buy more. After all, they have to impress their neighbors and families. This is closely related to the idea of living within one's means.
2. The US sheeple don't realize that those that they wish to vote into power to rescue them don't realize that cost of this unnecessary rescue will provide much more of an oppressive burden on them than does living as a responsible individual (or even as a slightly irresponsible individual). History bears this out. I urge you: don't help history repeat itself.
Obama's college tuition support plan
A classic Democrat lack of economic understand here: Barack Obama's plan would give each of our 16M college students $4K per year. That's $64B per year. For those of you with government educations, on average that equates to $300 additional annual burden per taxpayer. That's not even including some ridiculous health care scheme. Hillary was right... those Democrats are going to take things from us: our money. And they wonder why the middle class is struggling (we're going to revisit this one shortly).
The catch? Those receiving the stipend would have to join AmeriCorps. You remember AmeriCorps, don't you? That wonderful invention by Bill Clinton that ended up a corrupt, bloated, wasteful failure. In 2003, it was reported that AmeriCorps violated federal law by hiring more people than they were authorized to, and they spent more money than they were allowed by law. Once again, government can't do things right. And Obama wants to make it bigger. Brilliant.
The catch? Those receiving the stipend would have to join AmeriCorps. You remember AmeriCorps, don't you? That wonderful invention by Bill Clinton that ended up a corrupt, bloated, wasteful failure. In 2003, it was reported that AmeriCorps violated federal law by hiring more people than they were authorized to, and they spent more money than they were allowed by law. Once again, government can't do things right. And Obama wants to make it bigger. Brilliant.
2.04.2008
Anti-illegal immigration laws working...
So I'm reading that the tough illegal immigration laws enacted by Oklahoma and Arizona are working. Good.
Of course, ignorants are calling it "racism". Nevermind that the laws are not racist, they demand that everyone wanting to live in US demand that they follow the laws. Imagine that: a nation based on the concept of "rule by law" wants its constituents to live legally. Note that the ignorants are the ones bringing race into the equation, which makes them the actual racists.
But as I said earlier, all you have to do to get the weak-minded to believe what you say is to repeat it over and over.
Of course, ignorants are calling it "racism". Nevermind that the laws are not racist, they demand that everyone wanting to live in US demand that they follow the laws. Imagine that: a nation based on the concept of "rule by law" wants its constituents to live legally. Note that the ignorants are the ones bringing race into the equation, which makes them the actual racists.
But as I said earlier, all you have to do to get the weak-minded to believe what you say is to repeat it over and over.
2.03.2008
Clinton's socialist health care scheme...
Don't think she's socialist? Look again. From ABCNews this morning:
So, she would forcibly remove our freedom of choice oppress us. And still people will vote her straight to the Oval Office. Just why is it that people who take no responsibility to maintain their own freedom have any say in removing mine?
If the sheeple of the United States had any common sense at all, they would tell this power-hungry money-grabber to take her unconstitutional schemes and cram them up her ass. But instead, we have to get ready for long waits to see mediocre doctors who we didn't choose. We have to wait for our health care system, one of the best in the world, to fall comparably to that of say, Canada. Ever wonder why so many Canadians come to the US for health care? How many Americans leave the US to go to Canada for health care?
All so this woman can buy herself enough votes to grab her power. It amazes me that the very people she courts for their votes are the very same who this program will end costing the most in the long run. But since the US sheeple don't think about the future, since the don't think most of the time period, sorry they'll lose.
People wonder why health care costs so much. In a truly free-market economy, it wouldn't, even at our system's level of operation; competition would limit it. But since government interferes to such a great degree, costs are driven sky high. Kind of like gas prices.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
So, she would forcibly remove our freedom of choice oppress us. And still people will vote her straight to the Oval Office. Just why is it that people who take no responsibility to maintain their own freedom have any say in removing mine?
If the sheeple of the United States had any common sense at all, they would tell this power-hungry money-grabber to take her unconstitutional schemes and cram them up her ass. But instead, we have to get ready for long waits to see mediocre doctors who we didn't choose. We have to wait for our health care system, one of the best in the world, to fall comparably to that of say, Canada. Ever wonder why so many Canadians come to the US for health care? How many Americans leave the US to go to Canada for health care?
All so this woman can buy herself enough votes to grab her power. It amazes me that the very people she courts for their votes are the very same who this program will end costing the most in the long run. But since the US sheeple don't think about the future, since the don't think most of the time period, sorry they'll lose.
People wonder why health care costs so much. In a truly free-market economy, it wouldn't, even at our system's level of operation; competition would limit it. But since government interferes to such a great degree, costs are driven sky high. Kind of like gas prices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
