Wednesday, January 18, 2012
American Fools
Its origin (a Czech newspaper?) remains a mystery, but its message is dead on …
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of Entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit And undo the follie of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary Common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate, willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president."
This is so on the mark it's scary. Obama has a legion of foolish Americans who idolize him. There must be legions of Americans who see through this man right into his foolish ideas. Who will win this battle in the end?
I have heard that one should never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience. So true. If one is so intent on worshiping his highness, Mr. Obama, then you will never change that person's mind with logic and reason. Give it up. He is a lost cause.
But for the many folks who are smarter than this, you must keep at them whenever possible. Point out the contradictions, the class warfare rhetoric, the obvious inconsistencies in his speeches and actions, the holier-than-thou attitude he displays and his outright contempt for the Constitution. For those things, nobody does it better.
A wise man once said, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." Listen to all the fools around you every day. And soldier onward.
Come on people. We're supposed to be smarter than this. Get this fool out of office and silence the fools across this country who put him there.
Anybody but Obama.
OH
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of Entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit And undo the follie of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary Common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate, willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president."
This is so on the mark it's scary. Obama has a legion of foolish Americans who idolize him. There must be legions of Americans who see through this man right into his foolish ideas. Who will win this battle in the end?
I have heard that one should never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience. So true. If one is so intent on worshiping his highness, Mr. Obama, then you will never change that person's mind with logic and reason. Give it up. He is a lost cause.
But for the many folks who are smarter than this, you must keep at them whenever possible. Point out the contradictions, the class warfare rhetoric, the obvious inconsistencies in his speeches and actions, the holier-than-thou attitude he displays and his outright contempt for the Constitution. For those things, nobody does it better.
A wise man once said, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." Listen to all the fools around you every day. And soldier onward.
Come on people. We're supposed to be smarter than this. Get this fool out of office and silence the fools across this country who put him there.
Anybody but Obama.
OH
Monday, November 21, 2011
Just Say No
That's what this administration has been doing when it comes to permitting Americans to create their own jobs their own way. Just say No.
Want 200,00 jobs in Ohio and Pennsylvania? Sorry, but no. Environmental concerns, no really, won't allow hydraulic fracturing to take place. They say it needs to be studied.......and studied.....and studied.
Want 20,00 jobs in the Midwest? Uh, no thanks. Environmental concerns, again, won't allow it because they need to study the route of proposed pipelines to ensure no future leaks. It has been studied already but, no. We need to study it again, at least until the next election has passed.
Want thousands of workers to stay on the job retrieving oil from the Gulf of Mexico? Sorry. We had a major oil leak last year, remember? It's just not safe enough for those nasty, dirty old oil rigs anymore. We must stop this now!
Want 500,000 Green Energy jobs? Wow, really. Sure, let's create them. Uh, no. This administration has its' priorities straight, of course, and the top priority is funneling loans and grants to friends of the administration through green energy companies. Jobs be damned, my supporters get theirs first, sayeth the president.
Want to stop deficit spending? Well, the US government budget has been increased around 25% since 2007. 25%!!! And Congress and this president cannot even SLOW the increase in future spending by 1 f...ing percent! Really! How adult of them.
It will severely hurt the American people if we slow the increases in our budget. It will hurt families and kids and union workers and seniors and whomever else the depends on getting something for nothing from the government.
BS. All it will hurt is the Democrats election chances.
Forget everything you've learned. The Democrats have all the answers. If it isn't related to the Progressive wish list, they have an answer.
Just Say No.
I think I will say no as well. When I mark my ballots next November.
My nickel.
OH
Want 200,00 jobs in Ohio and Pennsylvania? Sorry, but no. Environmental concerns, no really, won't allow hydraulic fracturing to take place. They say it needs to be studied.......and studied.....and studied.
Want 20,00 jobs in the Midwest? Uh, no thanks. Environmental concerns, again, won't allow it because they need to study the route of proposed pipelines to ensure no future leaks. It has been studied already but, no. We need to study it again, at least until the next election has passed.
Want thousands of workers to stay on the job retrieving oil from the Gulf of Mexico? Sorry. We had a major oil leak last year, remember? It's just not safe enough for those nasty, dirty old oil rigs anymore. We must stop this now!
Want 500,000 Green Energy jobs? Wow, really. Sure, let's create them. Uh, no. This administration has its' priorities straight, of course, and the top priority is funneling loans and grants to friends of the administration through green energy companies. Jobs be damned, my supporters get theirs first, sayeth the president.
Want to stop deficit spending? Well, the US government budget has been increased around 25% since 2007. 25%!!! And Congress and this president cannot even SLOW the increase in future spending by 1 f...ing percent! Really! How adult of them.
It will severely hurt the American people if we slow the increases in our budget. It will hurt families and kids and union workers and seniors and whomever else the depends on getting something for nothing from the government.
BS. All it will hurt is the Democrats election chances.
Forget everything you've learned. The Democrats have all the answers. If it isn't related to the Progressive wish list, they have an answer.
Just Say No.
I think I will say no as well. When I mark my ballots next November.
My nickel.
OH
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Fair Share
What is the "Fair Share" of taxes that the president wants "millionaires and billionaires, which always seems to include $200,000aires" to pay? Just what percentage of their income do liberals define as a "Fair Share"?
I have heard this very question asked of many liberal pundits and not one of them gave an answer. The truth is that the term "Fair Share" means whatever they say it means whenever they say it. There is no single answer that could be given because it depends on what grandiose plans they have for spending money they don't have. The term is used as a means of targeting individuals, or corporations, who liberals want to attack.
They cannot give an answer to this question because there will always be some grand plan or cause or something that requires the government to spend more money on at some future date. If they ever caved into that question and said, OK how about 50%, then the next cause for liberal alarm will require more money and 50% will no longer be the correct "Fair Share".
As in Alice in Wonderland, "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." That is the way with liberals. When they say "Fair Share" it means just what they choose it to mean, no more no less.
Fair share my ass!
OH
I have heard this very question asked of many liberal pundits and not one of them gave an answer. The truth is that the term "Fair Share" means whatever they say it means whenever they say it. There is no single answer that could be given because it depends on what grandiose plans they have for spending money they don't have. The term is used as a means of targeting individuals, or corporations, who liberals want to attack.
They cannot give an answer to this question because there will always be some grand plan or cause or something that requires the government to spend more money on at some future date. If they ever caved into that question and said, OK how about 50%, then the next cause for liberal alarm will require more money and 50% will no longer be the correct "Fair Share".
As in Alice in Wonderland, "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." That is the way with liberals. When they say "Fair Share" it means just what they choose it to mean, no more no less.
Fair share my ass!
OH
Monday, September 12, 2011
Identify, Isolate, Freeze, Escalate
Saul Alinksy would be proud. More and more often we see these tactics, straight out of Rule #13 in Rules for Radicals, being adopted and used by the good little progressives wildly scrambling for some political traction in the wake of the failures of their Dear Ruler and their liberal pipe dreams.
More often we hear prominent Democrats identifying the TEA Party folks as their main target, Maxine Waters (TEA Party can go straight to hell), Andre Carson (hanging from a tree?), Frederica Wilson (real enemy is the TEA Party), Richard Trumka and Jimmy Hoffa (we are your army, we will take them out), Paul Efen Krugman (complete idiot shill). What an atrocious commentary penned by this Paul Efen Krugman on September 11th. Way to show your true colors Paul.
Maxine Waters rose to fame on the heels of the Rodney King beating and the ensuing LA riots. Now she says the TEA Party is the enemy. More and more liberals are calling out the TEA Party, identifying and isolating them from other straw men the liberals have it in for.
Alinsky coined this rule to battle against opposition. Since we are seeing so much more of this type of name-calling behavior from the left one can only conclude that they have found an enemy worth fighting. An enemy that has enough power that progressives feel the need to "take them out" whenever possible, as Jimmy Hoffa likes to say.
Make no mistake, the battle lines have been drawn. Leftists nationwide will repeat false claims and outrageous lies about the TEA Party because they know the TEA Party has a cogent, coherent and sensible argument. It's hard to argue against logic and facts. The left has found a convenient way to do this.
As their rhetoric against the TEA Party increases we will see many more attacks and outright lies repeated ad infinitum until the next election. A party that clings to their almost religious belief in all things government cannot be expected to see things from a logical point of view. They are so used to running this country, into the ground mostly, that they cannot see the facts when placed in front of them.
John Maynard Keynes is like a god to their beliefs. He could not have been wrong. Just a few billion more dollars to spark business and we are all good. For the umpteenth time, government spending does not create jobs. Business creates jobs and nothing Obama or his ilk can do will change that simple fact. Just get your efen ass out of the way and let Americans be Americans.
Calvin Coolidge once said that the business of America is business. For progressives, the business of America is government.
I'm pretty sure most Americans do not truly feel this way.
my nickel.
OH
More often we hear prominent Democrats identifying the TEA Party folks as their main target, Maxine Waters (TEA Party can go straight to hell), Andre Carson (hanging from a tree?), Frederica Wilson (real enemy is the TEA Party), Richard Trumka and Jimmy Hoffa (we are your army, we will take them out), Paul Efen Krugman (complete idiot shill). What an atrocious commentary penned by this Paul Efen Krugman on September 11th. Way to show your true colors Paul.
Maxine Waters rose to fame on the heels of the Rodney King beating and the ensuing LA riots. Now she says the TEA Party is the enemy. More and more liberals are calling out the TEA Party, identifying and isolating them from other straw men the liberals have it in for.
Alinsky coined this rule to battle against opposition. Since we are seeing so much more of this type of name-calling behavior from the left one can only conclude that they have found an enemy worth fighting. An enemy that has enough power that progressives feel the need to "take them out" whenever possible, as Jimmy Hoffa likes to say.
Make no mistake, the battle lines have been drawn. Leftists nationwide will repeat false claims and outrageous lies about the TEA Party because they know the TEA Party has a cogent, coherent and sensible argument. It's hard to argue against logic and facts. The left has found a convenient way to do this.
As their rhetoric against the TEA Party increases we will see many more attacks and outright lies repeated ad infinitum until the next election. A party that clings to their almost religious belief in all things government cannot be expected to see things from a logical point of view. They are so used to running this country, into the ground mostly, that they cannot see the facts when placed in front of them.
John Maynard Keynes is like a god to their beliefs. He could not have been wrong. Just a few billion more dollars to spark business and we are all good. For the umpteenth time, government spending does not create jobs. Business creates jobs and nothing Obama or his ilk can do will change that simple fact. Just get your efen ass out of the way and let Americans be Americans.
Calvin Coolidge once said that the business of America is business. For progressives, the business of America is government.
I'm pretty sure most Americans do not truly feel this way.
my nickel.
OH
Monday, August 29, 2011
Revenues or Taxes?
Which word do you think describes the act of the government taking money from you to fund it's operations? Revenues or Taxes?
Of course, taxes is the word. But you wouldn't know it from listening to the current President or his followers. Suddenly revenues is the preferred choice of words.
It has become revenues because it is so innocuous sounding, kind of uplifting. Increasing revenues means the government can help more people. That's a good thing.
Taxes, however, evoke a hard, cruel image of mean-spirited, faceless collectors robbing you of your hard-earned money. Increasing taxes means the government hurts more people. That's a bad thing.
Cognitive dissonance again. The true word is TAXES. Taxes are taken from the working people to generate revenues for the government. Increasing either of these means the government can continue on its merry way doing as it pleases with little regard to whether it is actually doing the right things or even making things better.
Nobody likes to pay more taxes. Everyone is in favor of increased revenues. But what is often overlooked in any of these discussions are the numbers of people actually paying any taxes to generate this increased revenue.
When roughly 50% of the people in the country pay ZERO income taxes, it is so much easier to convince them that revenues need to be increased. After all, those people aren't paying anything at all now so why should they even care. Go ahead and raise my neighbor's taxes, see if I care.
When many of these zero income tax workers are actually getting money back when they file their taxes it isn't hard to realize why they are in favor of government increasing revenues. If government revenues increase, perhaps the no taxes people can actually get even more money back that they didn't pay in the first place.
How long can this situation continue? Not very. I think I can already feel Atlas's shoulders shrugging.
My nickel.
OH
Of course, taxes is the word. But you wouldn't know it from listening to the current President or his followers. Suddenly revenues is the preferred choice of words.
It has become revenues because it is so innocuous sounding, kind of uplifting. Increasing revenues means the government can help more people. That's a good thing.
Taxes, however, evoke a hard, cruel image of mean-spirited, faceless collectors robbing you of your hard-earned money. Increasing taxes means the government hurts more people. That's a bad thing.
Cognitive dissonance again. The true word is TAXES. Taxes are taken from the working people to generate revenues for the government. Increasing either of these means the government can continue on its merry way doing as it pleases with little regard to whether it is actually doing the right things or even making things better.
Nobody likes to pay more taxes. Everyone is in favor of increased revenues. But what is often overlooked in any of these discussions are the numbers of people actually paying any taxes to generate this increased revenue.
When roughly 50% of the people in the country pay ZERO income taxes, it is so much easier to convince them that revenues need to be increased. After all, those people aren't paying anything at all now so why should they even care. Go ahead and raise my neighbor's taxes, see if I care.
When many of these zero income tax workers are actually getting money back when they file their taxes it isn't hard to realize why they are in favor of government increasing revenues. If government revenues increase, perhaps the no taxes people can actually get even more money back that they didn't pay in the first place.
How long can this situation continue? Not very. I think I can already feel Atlas's shoulders shrugging.
My nickel.
OH
Friday, August 19, 2011
Core Beliefs
What are your core beliefs? The things you truly believe, the things that you adhere to to give your life purpose and meaning? Do you know? Do you care?
Americans used to have a strong set of core beliefs. Individual Liberty stood at the top of the heap. This is what made America America. Without individual liberty we are not any different than any other historical country. Without individual liberty we are merely another failed experiment in governance. We the people created our government in our own image.
You don't have to like our image. You don't have to agree with our government. But you cannot argue that this country has produced more producers, more thinkers and more doers than any other country in history. This was not by accident.
By design our Founders created a revolutionary system of government where the governed actually agreed to give consent to be governed in the first place. Think about it. No other country in the world has ever created a government from scratch with the approval of those to be governed.
Most often, governments are formed by power hungry people who impose their will upon their subjects without the consent of those subjects. History is littered with these failed attempts at governing. These attempts will always fail because there is no buy in from the actual people.
America was created the other way around and we have had the most successful rise in power and stature ever seen in the world. People want to be free. People can manage their own lives quite well on their own without unending help or instructions from any government.
People who believe in themselves, who believe in a higher power than themselves, who follow an internalized set of moral codes can live their own lives quite well without any outside interference. People who rely on others handouts and generosity and those who wish to provide handouts using other people's money will have problems managing their own lives.
Surely there will always be these kinds of people but why do present day politicians want to constantly increase this group of people? Wouldn't it be wiser to induce self-reliance and an individual's belief in himself rather than expressly giving those people constant handouts?
Rioting in England recently displays what happens to people when they have grown to accept everything from their government while doing nothing on their own to improve themselves. Rioting in America will surely follow this same path if we continue to allow government to do everything and anything it wants to "improve" people's lives.
I think many people are lazy. Individual liberty requires personal responsibility. Lazy people don't want and will not accept responsibility. Politicians are the epitome of shirking individual responsibility. John Q Public needs to be cared for because he has had a bad day. Politicians will jump at the chance to make John Q's day into a good day. It will make said politician feel good. It will make John Q Public lazy.
Politicians have a responsibility to make good laws that do not have unintended consequences. The quick fix makes them feel good and by the time the unintended consequences are fully known, another politician will have an equally bad plan to make those unintended consequences go away. Of course, that, too, will have unintended consequences so the exercise in futility goes on and on. And the original reason for the good law is obscured.
Leave your good laws at home. Develop a set of core beliefs that include liberty and responsibility at the personal level and quit trying to modify everyone's behavior to a set of standards that produce equal results.
Not everyone is equal. All results are not the same. You do not know what is best for anyone else except yourself. If you do not know what is best for yourself, you will not find the answer in anyone else. Look inward and recognize your own flaws. Work on those flaws and leave everybody else alone to work on theirs.
My nickel.
OH
Americans used to have a strong set of core beliefs. Individual Liberty stood at the top of the heap. This is what made America America. Without individual liberty we are not any different than any other historical country. Without individual liberty we are merely another failed experiment in governance. We the people created our government in our own image.
You don't have to like our image. You don't have to agree with our government. But you cannot argue that this country has produced more producers, more thinkers and more doers than any other country in history. This was not by accident.
By design our Founders created a revolutionary system of government where the governed actually agreed to give consent to be governed in the first place. Think about it. No other country in the world has ever created a government from scratch with the approval of those to be governed.
Most often, governments are formed by power hungry people who impose their will upon their subjects without the consent of those subjects. History is littered with these failed attempts at governing. These attempts will always fail because there is no buy in from the actual people.
America was created the other way around and we have had the most successful rise in power and stature ever seen in the world. People want to be free. People can manage their own lives quite well on their own without unending help or instructions from any government.
People who believe in themselves, who believe in a higher power than themselves, who follow an internalized set of moral codes can live their own lives quite well without any outside interference. People who rely on others handouts and generosity and those who wish to provide handouts using other people's money will have problems managing their own lives.
Surely there will always be these kinds of people but why do present day politicians want to constantly increase this group of people? Wouldn't it be wiser to induce self-reliance and an individual's belief in himself rather than expressly giving those people constant handouts?
Rioting in England recently displays what happens to people when they have grown to accept everything from their government while doing nothing on their own to improve themselves. Rioting in America will surely follow this same path if we continue to allow government to do everything and anything it wants to "improve" people's lives.
I think many people are lazy. Individual liberty requires personal responsibility. Lazy people don't want and will not accept responsibility. Politicians are the epitome of shirking individual responsibility. John Q Public needs to be cared for because he has had a bad day. Politicians will jump at the chance to make John Q's day into a good day. It will make said politician feel good. It will make John Q Public lazy.
Politicians have a responsibility to make good laws that do not have unintended consequences. The quick fix makes them feel good and by the time the unintended consequences are fully known, another politician will have an equally bad plan to make those unintended consequences go away. Of course, that, too, will have unintended consequences so the exercise in futility goes on and on. And the original reason for the good law is obscured.
Leave your good laws at home. Develop a set of core beliefs that include liberty and responsibility at the personal level and quit trying to modify everyone's behavior to a set of standards that produce equal results.
Not everyone is equal. All results are not the same. You do not know what is best for anyone else except yourself. If you do not know what is best for yourself, you will not find the answer in anyone else. Look inward and recognize your own flaws. Work on those flaws and leave everybody else alone to work on theirs.
My nickel.
OH
Friday, June 03, 2011
Slightly Elasticized with Certitude, Kinetically Speaking
On May 10, 2010, former auto czar Steve Rattner publicly admitted that “GM may have slightly elasticized the reality of things” in its claims of repayment.
Doesn't "elasticizing" something mean the same thing as, oh, I don't know, LYING? But since it was only "slightly" elasticized, I guess that makes it OK?
On June 1, 2011 current Democrat Congressman from new York, Anthony Weiner, said that he "cannot say with certitude that the picture isn't him", referencing the Twitter pic of him (or someone) in their underwear sent to a 21 year old Seattle girl.
I'd like to know who uses the word "certitude" when certainty is a perfectly good word and much more common?
Words have meanings. Democrats are very, very good at using their words to hide their true intentions. They offer us "kinetic military action" when they really mean "war". Kinetic means pertaining to or causing motion. So our military is in motion around Lybia? wonderful news. But isn't the military always kinetic? Always in motion?
They gave us Overseas Contingency Operation to describe the War on Terror? Why? It sounds better? I don't think so but any Liberal would tell you so. Contingency means dependence on chance or on fulfillment of a condition; uncertainty; fortuitousness; something incidental to a thing. So you can't have a war on terror but you can have a something incidental to terror? Huh?
Elitists in general and Democrats in particular love to substitute obscure words or phrases for the commonly understood words because it makes them sound intelligent and it obscures their real meaning. Nothing magical about that but it is very deceiving to the population a at large.
The common metric for analyzing the effectiveness of government jobs creations bills has always been the actual number of jobs created due to a certain law. But after the Democrats allocated 787 Billion dollars for a "stimulus" bill to create jobs, the metric was changed to "jobs created or saved". Why? Because there is no way to measure jobs saved. Never has been and probably never will be.
Therefore it is an easy way for leaders to bypass criticism of the normal metric, jobs created, since they knew with "certitude" that that number would be weak and ineffective. Adding "jobs saved", which cannot be measured, gave them a wall to hide behind when describing the effectiveness of their near Trillion dollar boondoggle of Liberal wet dreams.
After all, as Obama has stated, it would be much worse if we had done nothing. Really? No one will ever truly know because their numbers can't be measured. Methinks they have been "elasticizing" their numbers.
Gimme a break you ignorant politicians. You think all Americans are idiots. You think we need protecting from ourselves. you think we need you to tell us what to do, how to protect ourselves, how to feed ourselves, how to handle our everyday lives. We don't. We don't need you to control our lives. leave us alone. And stop talking to us like we are infantile children.
You are leading to the brink of catastrophe with our economy, rules and regulations and money distribution schemes. You, Mr. Obama, are encouraging this flight of fantasy because you want to "fundamentally transform America" in your image. Have you looked in the mirror lately?
I truly believe your goal is exactly what you have stated and you will not stop your lunatic plans unless you are forced to stop by the voters. I think there are enough rational, sane Americans left to thwart your plans and put a halt to the fast slide into economic and liberty hell.
I surely hope that is the case. If you and your minions are left in office for another four years, I fear our country, as we have known it, is TOAST. Toppling Off A Steep Terrace.
I say with certitude, we cannot survive another four years of this socialistic rule, kinetically speaking.
My nickel.
OH
Doesn't "elasticizing" something mean the same thing as, oh, I don't know, LYING? But since it was only "slightly" elasticized, I guess that makes it OK?
On June 1, 2011 current Democrat Congressman from new York, Anthony Weiner, said that he "cannot say with certitude that the picture isn't him", referencing the Twitter pic of him (or someone) in their underwear sent to a 21 year old Seattle girl.
I'd like to know who uses the word "certitude" when certainty is a perfectly good word and much more common?
Words have meanings. Democrats are very, very good at using their words to hide their true intentions. They offer us "kinetic military action" when they really mean "war". Kinetic means pertaining to or causing motion. So our military is in motion around Lybia? wonderful news. But isn't the military always kinetic? Always in motion?
They gave us Overseas Contingency Operation to describe the War on Terror? Why? It sounds better? I don't think so but any Liberal would tell you so. Contingency means dependence on chance or on fulfillment of a condition; uncertainty; fortuitousness; something incidental to a thing. So you can't have a war on terror but you can have a something incidental to terror? Huh?
Elitists in general and Democrats in particular love to substitute obscure words or phrases for the commonly understood words because it makes them sound intelligent and it obscures their real meaning. Nothing magical about that but it is very deceiving to the population a at large.
The common metric for analyzing the effectiveness of government jobs creations bills has always been the actual number of jobs created due to a certain law. But after the Democrats allocated 787 Billion dollars for a "stimulus" bill to create jobs, the metric was changed to "jobs created or saved". Why? Because there is no way to measure jobs saved. Never has been and probably never will be.
Therefore it is an easy way for leaders to bypass criticism of the normal metric, jobs created, since they knew with "certitude" that that number would be weak and ineffective. Adding "jobs saved", which cannot be measured, gave them a wall to hide behind when describing the effectiveness of their near Trillion dollar boondoggle of Liberal wet dreams.
After all, as Obama has stated, it would be much worse if we had done nothing. Really? No one will ever truly know because their numbers can't be measured. Methinks they have been "elasticizing" their numbers.
Gimme a break you ignorant politicians. You think all Americans are idiots. You think we need protecting from ourselves. you think we need you to tell us what to do, how to protect ourselves, how to feed ourselves, how to handle our everyday lives. We don't. We don't need you to control our lives. leave us alone. And stop talking to us like we are infantile children.
You are leading to the brink of catastrophe with our economy, rules and regulations and money distribution schemes. You, Mr. Obama, are encouraging this flight of fantasy because you want to "fundamentally transform America" in your image. Have you looked in the mirror lately?
I truly believe your goal is exactly what you have stated and you will not stop your lunatic plans unless you are forced to stop by the voters. I think there are enough rational, sane Americans left to thwart your plans and put a halt to the fast slide into economic and liberty hell.
I surely hope that is the case. If you and your minions are left in office for another four years, I fear our country, as we have known it, is TOAST. Toppling Off A Steep Terrace.
I say with certitude, we cannot survive another four years of this socialistic rule, kinetically speaking.
My nickel.
OH
Thursday, May 12, 2011
More Cognitive Dissonance
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead. Osama Bin Laden is lying with the fishes.
I think this kill is the most glaring example of cognitive dissonance I have seen yet.
This SEAL team mission was to kill Osama. We learn from our progressive pundits that this is an entirely legal and justified purpose of using the US might. I do not disagree.
But what if the SEAL team had captured this man and brought him in for questioning? Then they would have only been able to ask him questions and nothing more. Punching him after capture would warrant an investigation and possible trial for violating his human rights. Such as what happened to the soldiers accused by a captured terrorist in Iraq of punching him after detaining him.
So outright killing a terrorist is OK but hitting him is not within our moral values as a Nation? Crazy. Cognitive dissonance. How does a person live with oneself while having such a disparate set of ethics?
And have you heard the denunciations from the left about how the information used to locate Bin Laden was NOT gained through water boarding? Yeah, sure. Because water boarding someone is also a violation of human rights but killing him, well, it isn't. Just because we say so.
How about the National Labor Relations Board refusing to allow Boeing Corporation to build a new plant in South Carolina because it is a, gasp, Right to Work State. How dare this corporation make a wise business decision and build here ignoring the unions in Boeing's home state of Washington.
Again, I don't see how liberal minds live with themselves. Business decisions that create profit are demonized by the progressives as greedy and not taking into account the rights, hahahaha, of the workers. Funny, the workers aren't creating any jobs. But somehow Obama's flunkies on this board think unions are being discriminated against and these new jobs should, of course, be all union.
Atlas Shrugged is being played out live everyday all around us. How much longer can we endure this BS before the job creators take their ball and go home? I wonder if the anti-capitalists in this administration will ever make the connection between their job-killing ideas and the fact that jobs are not being created. What is the sound of one hand clapping? Cognitive Dissonance.
My nickel.
OH
I think this kill is the most glaring example of cognitive dissonance I have seen yet.
This SEAL team mission was to kill Osama. We learn from our progressive pundits that this is an entirely legal and justified purpose of using the US might. I do not disagree.
But what if the SEAL team had captured this man and brought him in for questioning? Then they would have only been able to ask him questions and nothing more. Punching him after capture would warrant an investigation and possible trial for violating his human rights. Such as what happened to the soldiers accused by a captured terrorist in Iraq of punching him after detaining him.
So outright killing a terrorist is OK but hitting him is not within our moral values as a Nation? Crazy. Cognitive dissonance. How does a person live with oneself while having such a disparate set of ethics?
And have you heard the denunciations from the left about how the information used to locate Bin Laden was NOT gained through water boarding? Yeah, sure. Because water boarding someone is also a violation of human rights but killing him, well, it isn't. Just because we say so.
How about the National Labor Relations Board refusing to allow Boeing Corporation to build a new plant in South Carolina because it is a, gasp, Right to Work State. How dare this corporation make a wise business decision and build here ignoring the unions in Boeing's home state of Washington.
Again, I don't see how liberal minds live with themselves. Business decisions that create profit are demonized by the progressives as greedy and not taking into account the rights, hahahaha, of the workers. Funny, the workers aren't creating any jobs. But somehow Obama's flunkies on this board think unions are being discriminated against and these new jobs should, of course, be all union.
Atlas Shrugged is being played out live everyday all around us. How much longer can we endure this BS before the job creators take their ball and go home? I wonder if the anti-capitalists in this administration will ever make the connection between their job-killing ideas and the fact that jobs are not being created. What is the sound of one hand clapping? Cognitive Dissonance.
My nickel.
OH
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Elections Should/Shouldn't Matter
Well, what do you believe? Should they or shouldn't they?
Nancy Pelosi seems to think they shouldn't matter so much. That's pretty funny since her side got beaten severely in last fall's elections. A sign of a loser's rationalization, perhaps? She certainly didn't feel that way when her Democrats took control of the House in 2006 elevating her to the number three position in our government. She even stated as much in 2009 after passing the monstrous Stimulus Bill saying, yes, we wrote the bill. We won the election.
Nor did Barack Obama after his resounding win in 2008 put him in the White House, as he so pointedly told Republicans during stimulus and budget negotiations in early 2009, "I won". Elections have consequences. Always.
But when Mr. Obama was confronted with the realities of brokering a budget agreement between the two parties, his reaction was quite different. He stated that getting what you want in negotiations is not how it works. Funny how he paints the picture differently depending on which side of the argument he is on. Well, not funny really, it is truly disgusting.
The whole reason we are even having this fight over this year's budget is because the Democrats didn't want to have this discussion last year before the elections. The only real piece of legislation the Congress is required to pass each year, the Federal Budget, was not done simply because of politics.
Thus for any Democrat to demonize the Republicans for trying to pass a budget with cuts is ludicrous since this whole exercise in futility could have been avoided if the Democrats had merely done their job in the first place. It amazes how much gall these people exhibit in criticizing someone for trying to do what the criticizer did not do originally. Simply amazing.
Yes, elections matter. And they should matter. What is the point of having two parties in lock step with one another so voters won't be confused by the difference between the two? That has been the way politics has operated for a long time. Each side taking our country further down the road to socialism, Republicans a bit more slowly than the Democrats would like but both heading in the same wrong-headed direction.
I am glad to see this level of fighting over spending cuts. That discussion is long, long overdue. I am tired of fighting both parties and find it refreshing that the TEA Party movement is having a major effect on our politicians behaviors. Hooray for our side.
Now if you want to get a preview of what America would be like if the TEA Party movement fails to force our legislators to realize that socialism cannot work, go see the movie "Atlas Shrugged". If that doesn't scare you into believing we are nearing the precipice with deficit spending, I'm afraid nothing will.
My only saving thought in this mess is that I am nearly 60 years old and can probably outrun the worst of what is to come for the US. I fear that my daughter and grandchildren will not.
My nickel,
OH
Nancy Pelosi seems to think they shouldn't matter so much. That's pretty funny since her side got beaten severely in last fall's elections. A sign of a loser's rationalization, perhaps? She certainly didn't feel that way when her Democrats took control of the House in 2006 elevating her to the number three position in our government. She even stated as much in 2009 after passing the monstrous Stimulus Bill saying, yes, we wrote the bill. We won the election.
Nor did Barack Obama after his resounding win in 2008 put him in the White House, as he so pointedly told Republicans during stimulus and budget negotiations in early 2009, "I won". Elections have consequences. Always.
But when Mr. Obama was confronted with the realities of brokering a budget agreement between the two parties, his reaction was quite different. He stated that getting what you want in negotiations is not how it works. Funny how he paints the picture differently depending on which side of the argument he is on. Well, not funny really, it is truly disgusting.
The whole reason we are even having this fight over this year's budget is because the Democrats didn't want to have this discussion last year before the elections. The only real piece of legislation the Congress is required to pass each year, the Federal Budget, was not done simply because of politics.
Thus for any Democrat to demonize the Republicans for trying to pass a budget with cuts is ludicrous since this whole exercise in futility could have been avoided if the Democrats had merely done their job in the first place. It amazes how much gall these people exhibit in criticizing someone for trying to do what the criticizer did not do originally. Simply amazing.
Yes, elections matter. And they should matter. What is the point of having two parties in lock step with one another so voters won't be confused by the difference between the two? That has been the way politics has operated for a long time. Each side taking our country further down the road to socialism, Republicans a bit more slowly than the Democrats would like but both heading in the same wrong-headed direction.
I am glad to see this level of fighting over spending cuts. That discussion is long, long overdue. I am tired of fighting both parties and find it refreshing that the TEA Party movement is having a major effect on our politicians behaviors. Hooray for our side.
Now if you want to get a preview of what America would be like if the TEA Party movement fails to force our legislators to realize that socialism cannot work, go see the movie "Atlas Shrugged". If that doesn't scare you into believing we are nearing the precipice with deficit spending, I'm afraid nothing will.
My only saving thought in this mess is that I am nearly 60 years old and can probably outrun the worst of what is to come for the US. I fear that my daughter and grandchildren will not.
My nickel,
OH
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Present, Still
Barack Obama has served as a Community Organizer, State Senator, US Senator and president. His roll call votes indicate that he voted "present" more often than anything else.
Voting present is not a sign of leadership. It is punting. It forces other people to take up the slack for your indecisiveness. My ex-wife used to get mad at me whenever she asked me what I wanted to eat or to do and I would say, whatever you want. She wanted me to make a decision and I deferred back to her. I voted present. It actually did help my marriage last a bit longer but that is not the way to truly get anything done.
I have never aspired to a leadership capacity partly because it has been my nature to not make a decision until I really, really had to make it. For a year or two I was in a management role in my office but it only led to increased alcohol input to alleviate the strain on my psyche for having to make decisions that I felt uncomfortable making. I demoted myself from that role and was able to kick the drinking dependency.
But I am a lowly peon in our society. I am not the leader of the free world, nor would I ever want to be so. Mr. Obama, however, did everything he could do to get that position. He talked a good talk on the campaign trail and he ran his campaign smartly to overtake the predicted front runner in his party, Hillary Clinton, and on to easily defeat John McCain to win his coveted title and position. He said all the right things, I guess, to get himself elected.
Then he started off with a bang, declaring Guantanamo to be closed within one year and helping push nearly a trillion dollars of Democrats wet dreams into reality. He went on a worldwide public speaking tour criticizing America for her past sins and resetting relations with the world.
Then he started voting present again. And he is still voting present.
Yes, I know, he doesn't vote anymore. Doesn't matter, he's having the same effect. Let someone else start off on a subject and then he will come along and criticize them. He said last year he would test Republicans about slashing government spending but when it came time for him to propose his budget for next year, it was actually larger than ever. No cuts. More spending, nothing about Social Security, Medicare or anything relevant to the discussion.
That is voting present.
Watching him dithering about sending more troops to Afghanistan his first year in office was painful. It took him 3 months to decide to give the generals what they asked for and what he had said on the campaign trail that he would do there. But when he announced the surge, he immediately followed that up by saying the troop draw down would begin in 2011. Some surge.
That is voting present.
His comments about Tunisia and Egypt were from both sides of his mouth as well. On Lybia, I have never seen or heard so much indecisiveness from one administration ever.
What exactly is our mission there? Who's in charge? Why did Bush need 17 UN resolutions and approval from both branches of Congress to go into Iraq while Obama only needs verbal support from organizations we don't even know (who are the rebels in Lybia?) and a vague list of countries with no fire power and the Arab League, who immediately criticized the very no-fly zone enforcement that they had requested.
Ghaddafi must go! No, maybe he can stay. I'm not really sure what we want him to do. This foreign politics stuff is really irritating me. Guess we'll lob a few Tomahawks at them and then consider our mission complete.
That is voting present.
The longer this man is in office the more nervous about our future I become. My greatest fear is that somehow things will turn around for his popularity and complacent, uninformed people will put him back in office for another four years.
I don't think this country can survive another four years of this man in the White House. Voting present.
They say Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
Obama just plays golf and basketball while the world burns.
And he is present, still. Dammit.
OH
Voting present is not a sign of leadership. It is punting. It forces other people to take up the slack for your indecisiveness. My ex-wife used to get mad at me whenever she asked me what I wanted to eat or to do and I would say, whatever you want. She wanted me to make a decision and I deferred back to her. I voted present. It actually did help my marriage last a bit longer but that is not the way to truly get anything done.
I have never aspired to a leadership capacity partly because it has been my nature to not make a decision until I really, really had to make it. For a year or two I was in a management role in my office but it only led to increased alcohol input to alleviate the strain on my psyche for having to make decisions that I felt uncomfortable making. I demoted myself from that role and was able to kick the drinking dependency.
But I am a lowly peon in our society. I am not the leader of the free world, nor would I ever want to be so. Mr. Obama, however, did everything he could do to get that position. He talked a good talk on the campaign trail and he ran his campaign smartly to overtake the predicted front runner in his party, Hillary Clinton, and on to easily defeat John McCain to win his coveted title and position. He said all the right things, I guess, to get himself elected.
Then he started off with a bang, declaring Guantanamo to be closed within one year and helping push nearly a trillion dollars of Democrats wet dreams into reality. He went on a worldwide public speaking tour criticizing America for her past sins and resetting relations with the world.
Then he started voting present again. And he is still voting present.
Yes, I know, he doesn't vote anymore. Doesn't matter, he's having the same effect. Let someone else start off on a subject and then he will come along and criticize them. He said last year he would test Republicans about slashing government spending but when it came time for him to propose his budget for next year, it was actually larger than ever. No cuts. More spending, nothing about Social Security, Medicare or anything relevant to the discussion.
That is voting present.
Watching him dithering about sending more troops to Afghanistan his first year in office was painful. It took him 3 months to decide to give the generals what they asked for and what he had said on the campaign trail that he would do there. But when he announced the surge, he immediately followed that up by saying the troop draw down would begin in 2011. Some surge.
That is voting present.
His comments about Tunisia and Egypt were from both sides of his mouth as well. On Lybia, I have never seen or heard so much indecisiveness from one administration ever.
What exactly is our mission there? Who's in charge? Why did Bush need 17 UN resolutions and approval from both branches of Congress to go into Iraq while Obama only needs verbal support from organizations we don't even know (who are the rebels in Lybia?) and a vague list of countries with no fire power and the Arab League, who immediately criticized the very no-fly zone enforcement that they had requested.
Ghaddafi must go! No, maybe he can stay. I'm not really sure what we want him to do. This foreign politics stuff is really irritating me. Guess we'll lob a few Tomahawks at them and then consider our mission complete.
That is voting present.
The longer this man is in office the more nervous about our future I become. My greatest fear is that somehow things will turn around for his popularity and complacent, uninformed people will put him back in office for another four years.
I don't think this country can survive another four years of this man in the White House. Voting present.
They say Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
Obama just plays golf and basketball while the world burns.
And he is present, still. Dammit.
OH
