Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
Reuter’s news service headline;
McCain takes 5-point lead over Obama-Reuters poll
Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:11am EDT
This is a drastic change in the polls in just a short amount of time. Of course, the left wing spin followed in the story in an attempt to steer the public away from the notion that Obama is unlikable. Once again, the black man is being victimized by whitey;
“The reversal follows a month of attacks by McCain, who has questioned Obama's experience, criticized his opposition to most new offshore oil drilling and mocked his overseas trip.”
And that’s not all;
“"There is no doubt the campaign to discredit Obama is paying off for McCain right now," pollster John Zogby said.”This is significant ebb for Obama."
The article does go on to explain some of the recent polling results with some significant reasons for them.
Read the entire article here; http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUKN1948672420080820?sp=true
But there may be an even bigger reason…..
This is an interesting quote from a person defending the terrorists in Iraq;
“We must begin by really standing with the Iraqi people and defending their right to resist. I can remain myself against all forms of violence, and yet I cannot judge what someone has to do when pushed to the wall to protect all they love. The Iraqi people are fighting for their country, to protect their families and to preserve all they love. They are fighting for their lives, and we (USA) are fighting for lies." (AlterNet, June 26, 2005)”-prnewswire.com
What Islamo-facist in what third world country would make such an outlandish remark? Was it Osama Bin Laden? Nope, it was a woman named Jodie Evans. Why would this surprise any of us? Normally it wouldn’t except for one fact that makes it significant;
“Evans has a close relationship with the Obama campaign. She hostedObama's first Hollywood fundraiser in February 2007, along with StevenSpielberg, David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg and her ex-husband Max Palevsky. Evans is listed on the Obama website as having bundled between $50,000 and $100,000. She has also contributed the maximum $2300 to his primarycampaign, according to FEC records.”- prnewswire.com
Evans is just another one in a long list of left wing, anti-American nut jobs that Barack Hussien Obama enjoys associating with. Like the Reverend Wright, Evans thinks American’s deserved 9-11;
“Jodie Evans:..."We were attacked because we were in Saudi Arabia, that was the message of Osama, was that because we had our bases in the Middle East, he attacked the United States.
Paul A. Ibbetson: "Do you think that's a valid argument?"
Evans: "Sure. Why do we have bases in the Middle East? We totally Violated the rights of that country. Why do we get to have bases in the Middle East?"
Also in that interview, Evans said Code Pink's goal (peace activist organization) is to "undermine the war effort (of the United States") and that she wished Saddam Hussein was still in power. "- prnewswire.com
She has proven valuable to Obama monetarily as well as an advisor;
“ According to… Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin, Evans is on a first name basis with Obama and discussed Iraq policy with Obama at another Hollywood fundraiser on June 24, 2008.”- prnewswire.com
The article says that Evans has a history of dealing with governments;
“Evans has worked with the governments of Saddam Hussein (in 2003), Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers, as well as pro-insurgent elements in the Middle East.”- prnewswire.com
This fraternization with hostile governments has been backed by her own insurgent actions at home;
“Evans has led a campaign against the Marines at home in Berkeley, where Code Pink has called the Marines "assassins" and she has likened the Marine recruiting office to a "porn shop”…. The Obama campaign has rejected two requests by pro-troop organizations that Obama renounce Evans."- prnews.com
Maybe Barack Hussien Obama is dropping so fast in the polls because his history is “coming home to roost”. The more Americans know about him, the less they like him.
And what about this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjC2AlWy6CI
Friday, August 22, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
PICKENS, PELOSI AND PROFITS
Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
Isn’t it amazing to watch the left wing media’s endless barrage of stories pointed at big business and big oil? Obama would take the profits from these demonized entities and redistribute them either to bribe his would be constituents to vote for him or to fill the government’s coffers to fund his socialist agenda. So many have been brainwashed into believing all corporate America is evil.
I have yet to see the main-stream media report how a couple other big investors have manipulated government policies to enrich themselves. Those two, Al Gore with his global warming snake oil fix called carbon credits and Nancy Pelosi, who has invested in T. Boone Pickens’ alternative energy program. Ms. Pelosi stands to make huge profits if the ballot initiative, California's Proposition 10 known as the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act passes;
“The ballot initiative is California's Proposition 10, known as the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act, which would spend $5 billion in California bond money – $10 billion by the time the interest is paid, according to the L.A. Times – to promote natural gas as a cleaner alternative for automobile and truck fuel.
Not surprisingly, the nation's largest provider of natural gas for transportation, Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, or CLNE, has a great deal to gain from the adoption of Pickens' fuel strategy and the passage of Proposition 10. In fact, according to the California Secretary of State website, CLNE has contributed $3,247,250 to supporting Proposition 10's passage.
CLNE, however, was formerly known as Pickens Fuel after its primary investor, T. Boone Pickens.
According to the investigation, Pelosi purchased $50,000-$100,000 in CLNE stock on May 25, 2007, apparently on its initial public offering.
Now the House speaker stands to make a large profit on her reported 22,000 shares of CLNE if she and other public figures can persuade the people of California to vote for Proposition 10 in the name of renewable energy and clean, alternative fuels…..
….Pelosi is one of the richest members of Congress and her wealth comes primarily from investments, real estate and "now, of course, stocks in CLNE."”- http://www.worldnetdaily.com
Isn’t Nancy Pelosi the same speaker of the house who recently sent the house members home on a five week vacation before there could be a vote to lift the ban on off-shore drilling? What would the main-stream media say if Dick Cheney was the one to do this?
So, Nancy Pelosi gets in bed with big oil guy Pickens, pushes legislation to help him and her investments and blocks votes that would harm those same investments and not one word in the main-stream media about it. Where is the outrage? Kool-aid drinking lefties save that for the fictitious underworld of Bush-Cheney, Halliburton and Big oil.
some more good stuff;
Should we call them gulags or Gitmos?
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=97741&catid=188
Just do it Nancy
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080816/D92JM7NG2.html
That old black magic ain't quite working
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109564/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Obama-Tied-44.aspx
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
Isn’t it amazing to watch the left wing media’s endless barrage of stories pointed at big business and big oil? Obama would take the profits from these demonized entities and redistribute them either to bribe his would be constituents to vote for him or to fill the government’s coffers to fund his socialist agenda. So many have been brainwashed into believing all corporate America is evil.
I have yet to see the main-stream media report how a couple other big investors have manipulated government policies to enrich themselves. Those two, Al Gore with his global warming snake oil fix called carbon credits and Nancy Pelosi, who has invested in T. Boone Pickens’ alternative energy program. Ms. Pelosi stands to make huge profits if the ballot initiative, California's Proposition 10 known as the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act passes;
“The ballot initiative is California's Proposition 10, known as the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act, which would spend $5 billion in California bond money – $10 billion by the time the interest is paid, according to the L.A. Times – to promote natural gas as a cleaner alternative for automobile and truck fuel.
Not surprisingly, the nation's largest provider of natural gas for transportation, Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, or CLNE, has a great deal to gain from the adoption of Pickens' fuel strategy and the passage of Proposition 10. In fact, according to the California Secretary of State website, CLNE has contributed $3,247,250 to supporting Proposition 10's passage.
CLNE, however, was formerly known as Pickens Fuel after its primary investor, T. Boone Pickens.
According to the investigation, Pelosi purchased $50,000-$100,000 in CLNE stock on May 25, 2007, apparently on its initial public offering.
Now the House speaker stands to make a large profit on her reported 22,000 shares of CLNE if she and other public figures can persuade the people of California to vote for Proposition 10 in the name of renewable energy and clean, alternative fuels…..
….Pelosi is one of the richest members of Congress and her wealth comes primarily from investments, real estate and "now, of course, stocks in CLNE."”- http://www.worldnetdaily.com
Isn’t Nancy Pelosi the same speaker of the house who recently sent the house members home on a five week vacation before there could be a vote to lift the ban on off-shore drilling? What would the main-stream media say if Dick Cheney was the one to do this?
So, Nancy Pelosi gets in bed with big oil guy Pickens, pushes legislation to help him and her investments and blocks votes that would harm those same investments and not one word in the main-stream media about it. Where is the outrage? Kool-aid drinking lefties save that for the fictitious underworld of Bush-Cheney, Halliburton and Big oil.
some more good stuff;
Should we call them gulags or Gitmos?
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=97741&catid=188
Just do it Nancy
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080816/D92JM7NG2.html
That old black magic ain't quite working
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109564/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Obama-Tied-44.aspx
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
NOTHING FAIR ABOUT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE
Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
If the mainstream media was balanced, the “Bush is the worst president ever” mantra would never be uttered. He is an easy target for the democrat party, a party that stands for nothing and who spends more time investigating the members of the Republican Party then doing any real business. With the media clearly in the back pocket of the democrats, whatever propaganda the left wants repeated will be until it is accepted as reality. Well, Bush is not the greatest president ever, but he is in the top ten.
The best quality of George W. Bush is that he is a man of conviction and doesn’t care what people think of him. After eight years of Clinton, it was hard to believe there could be a president who would make decisions that went against public opinion or at least what the mainstream media said the public opinion was. Clinton made no move without polling first, even as far as to influence how he dressed. Clinton was led by polls instead of trying to steer the public opinion with his leadership. Bush on the other hand, would rather do what he thinks is right and take the time to correct his mistakes through diligent work and perseverance. Public criticism falls on deaf ears if Bush knows he is doing the right thing; the Surge in Iraq is the best example of this. While democrats surrendered daily in Iraq and threw our troops under the bus for their own political gains, Bush found a way to win the war.
After 9-11, Bush saw his approval ratings soar, which was natural considering the circumstances. Since then America hasn’t been attacked again and we have established a strong foothold and ally in the region that breeds terror throughout the world. A constant barrage of negative news and editorials has painted Bush “43” in a negative light ever since. In spite of this, the American economy has remained strong with a stock market reaching heights it was only dreamed of before. Taxes are lower because of Bush. He created a missile defense shield. He has fought the Kyoto treaty which is a restriction on capitalism and free trade. He has done more to fight AIDS than any of his predecessors.
The American war on terror has set countless millions of women free, released from the bonds of Islamic extremism. But would the feminists in America ever give him credit for this? Instead they will back men like Clinton and Kennedy who use their positions to prey on their female underlings. Bush appointed a black woman as secretary of state but will the black community give him credit for elevating a minority member, rewarding someone who has rightfully worked for and deserves such a position? No, instead they will follow and support leaders like Jackson, a reverend who has children out of wedlock and extorts money from businesses and Sharpton, another media hound who plays the victim card regularly.
The media is undoubtedly biased towards the left and anyone who believes otherwise isn’t paying attention. They withhold news, twist stories, and ignore anything that hurts the liberal agenda. Now, the democrats in congress are trying to revive the “fairness doctrine”. The left makes three points in favor of revival of this act;
Myth 1: The Scarcity ArgumentMyth 2: The Censorship ArgumentMyth 3: The Public Interest Argument
“The Scarcity Argument
Does conservative talk radio really dominate the political landscape? That could be true only if talk radio is the prevailing source of news and information in the United States, a doubtful proposition on its face. Given that the liberal party took control of Congress and many state governments in 2006, the notion that conservative talk show hosts are calling the shots in the United States seems dubious.”
http://www.cultureandmedia.com
“The Censorship Argument
Are Americans being deprived of access to liberal points of view? Any examination of the talk radio universe will reveal that liberal voices are very well represented on the airwaves. Moreover, talk radio is only one slice of the media pie. Within the “elite media,” the major television and cable networks, the leading news magazines, the most circulated newspapers, and most popular news/talk radio programming, liberal news and opinion sources reach a far greater audience than conservative sources.”- http://www.cultureandmedia.com
“The Public Interest Argument
At first blush the Fairness Doctrine seems very sensible, even obvious. Who wouldn’t want broadcasters to provide both sides of controversial issues? Wouldn’t the public benefit from hearing even more opinions?
The historical record, however, belies the assertion that the so-called Fairness Doctrine facilitates more speech. Broadcasters, intimidated by the potential difficulties and expense of providing alternative views whenever they aired a controversial opinion, often chose simply to avoid controversial topics altogether. The Project for Excellence in Journalism, in its report The State of the News Media 2007, asserts that the result of the Fairness Doctrine “was that radio talk programs consisted primarily of general (non-political) talk and advice. The big names were people like Michael Jackson in Los Angeles, whose program included interviews with celebrities, authors, and civic leaders.”46 PEJ observes that “the modern era in talk radio effectively began with the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.”47”- http://www.cultureandmedia.com
If the public is sufficiently educated and freedom of speech is unencumbered, than why do we need a law prohibiting speech? Government can’t push forward freedom of speech by inhibiting it. The “fairness doctrine” is merely a political tool intended to silence the opposition to the liberal agenda. If anyone thinks there isn’t a left wing media, just look at what they have done to Bush.
Some good stuff;
“The earth has a fever (insane chuckle)”- Al Gore
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-tom-skilling-explainer-13aug13,0,918946.story
Where is Abbey Hoffman when you need him?
http://cbs4denver.com/denver2008/denver.protesters.arrested.2.793930.html
If he can walk on water, why can’t he get ahead in the polls?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12503.html
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
If the mainstream media was balanced, the “Bush is the worst president ever” mantra would never be uttered. He is an easy target for the democrat party, a party that stands for nothing and who spends more time investigating the members of the Republican Party then doing any real business. With the media clearly in the back pocket of the democrats, whatever propaganda the left wants repeated will be until it is accepted as reality. Well, Bush is not the greatest president ever, but he is in the top ten.
The best quality of George W. Bush is that he is a man of conviction and doesn’t care what people think of him. After eight years of Clinton, it was hard to believe there could be a president who would make decisions that went against public opinion or at least what the mainstream media said the public opinion was. Clinton made no move without polling first, even as far as to influence how he dressed. Clinton was led by polls instead of trying to steer the public opinion with his leadership. Bush on the other hand, would rather do what he thinks is right and take the time to correct his mistakes through diligent work and perseverance. Public criticism falls on deaf ears if Bush knows he is doing the right thing; the Surge in Iraq is the best example of this. While democrats surrendered daily in Iraq and threw our troops under the bus for their own political gains, Bush found a way to win the war.
After 9-11, Bush saw his approval ratings soar, which was natural considering the circumstances. Since then America hasn’t been attacked again and we have established a strong foothold and ally in the region that breeds terror throughout the world. A constant barrage of negative news and editorials has painted Bush “43” in a negative light ever since. In spite of this, the American economy has remained strong with a stock market reaching heights it was only dreamed of before. Taxes are lower because of Bush. He created a missile defense shield. He has fought the Kyoto treaty which is a restriction on capitalism and free trade. He has done more to fight AIDS than any of his predecessors.
The American war on terror has set countless millions of women free, released from the bonds of Islamic extremism. But would the feminists in America ever give him credit for this? Instead they will back men like Clinton and Kennedy who use their positions to prey on their female underlings. Bush appointed a black woman as secretary of state but will the black community give him credit for elevating a minority member, rewarding someone who has rightfully worked for and deserves such a position? No, instead they will follow and support leaders like Jackson, a reverend who has children out of wedlock and extorts money from businesses and Sharpton, another media hound who plays the victim card regularly.
The media is undoubtedly biased towards the left and anyone who believes otherwise isn’t paying attention. They withhold news, twist stories, and ignore anything that hurts the liberal agenda. Now, the democrats in congress are trying to revive the “fairness doctrine”. The left makes three points in favor of revival of this act;
Myth 1: The Scarcity ArgumentMyth 2: The Censorship ArgumentMyth 3: The Public Interest Argument
“The Scarcity Argument
Does conservative talk radio really dominate the political landscape? That could be true only if talk radio is the prevailing source of news and information in the United States, a doubtful proposition on its face. Given that the liberal party took control of Congress and many state governments in 2006, the notion that conservative talk show hosts are calling the shots in the United States seems dubious.”
http://www.cultureandmedia.com
“The Censorship Argument
Are Americans being deprived of access to liberal points of view? Any examination of the talk radio universe will reveal that liberal voices are very well represented on the airwaves. Moreover, talk radio is only one slice of the media pie. Within the “elite media,” the major television and cable networks, the leading news magazines, the most circulated newspapers, and most popular news/talk radio programming, liberal news and opinion sources reach a far greater audience than conservative sources.”- http://www.cultureandmedia.com
“The Public Interest Argument
At first blush the Fairness Doctrine seems very sensible, even obvious. Who wouldn’t want broadcasters to provide both sides of controversial issues? Wouldn’t the public benefit from hearing even more opinions?
The historical record, however, belies the assertion that the so-called Fairness Doctrine facilitates more speech. Broadcasters, intimidated by the potential difficulties and expense of providing alternative views whenever they aired a controversial opinion, often chose simply to avoid controversial topics altogether. The Project for Excellence in Journalism, in its report The State of the News Media 2007, asserts that the result of the Fairness Doctrine “was that radio talk programs consisted primarily of general (non-political) talk and advice. The big names were people like Michael Jackson in Los Angeles, whose program included interviews with celebrities, authors, and civic leaders.”46 PEJ observes that “the modern era in talk radio effectively began with the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.”47”- http://www.cultureandmedia.com
If the public is sufficiently educated and freedom of speech is unencumbered, than why do we need a law prohibiting speech? Government can’t push forward freedom of speech by inhibiting it. The “fairness doctrine” is merely a political tool intended to silence the opposition to the liberal agenda. If anyone thinks there isn’t a left wing media, just look at what they have done to Bush.
Some good stuff;
“The earth has a fever (insane chuckle)”- Al Gore
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-tom-skilling-explainer-13aug13,0,918946.story
Where is Abbey Hoffman when you need him?
http://cbs4denver.com/denver2008/denver.protesters.arrested.2.793930.html
If he can walk on water, why can’t he get ahead in the polls?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12503.html
Monday, August 11, 2008
THE DEMOCRATS DEFY LOGIC
Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
The Republicans won’t give up the House and for a very good reason; there needs to be a vote. The democrat speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, refuses to let there be a vote for new oil exploration and drilling and has adjourned the senate for a five week paid vacation. She doesn’t want there to be a vote because public opinion and pressure has assured the passing of a new energy policy. So, Pelosi, a left wing radical from San Francisco, would rather appease the tree hugging nut jobs on the left for symbolic reasons than have a common sense policy that would actually produce new and cheaper energy for Americans.
The left has suggested releasing oil from the national oil reserves to help lower gas prices. Well, if getting more energy into the supply lines would ease prices, wouldn’t it make sense to actually produce more fuel? We have coal, shale, natural gas and oil, both on shore and off and yet, a lethargic majority has allowed a radical left wing run our nation’s energy policies for far too long and we find ourselves unable to even help ourselves anymore because of the evil they have wrought. We have let environmentalists brain wash the general public with ads portraying crying Indians and movies about greedy companies producing dangerous nuclear plants. Average citizens have been betrayed by people who said they were interested in keeping America clean and pristine. Americans thought it was common sense to want a clean environment and it is, unfortunately people with no common sense have been and are allowed to make policy and pass laws that are hurting us all and literally destroying the country.
Nancy Pelosi says we need to quote “save the world” from global warming. I didn’t know it was a representative from California’s job to act so globally. Actually, I thought the representatives of American citizens took an oath to honor, obey and protect the Constitution. What a narcissistic person she must be to think she has the power to change the atmosphere and natural course of events, if global warming is even real, and yet she won’t allow the vote so Americans can help themselves.
And so, democrats want Americans to inflate their tires, turn up their air conditioning and turn down their heat and wear sweaters in doors. Their energy policies include taxing oil companies and giving that money to their constituents even though that money is going to come from those same constituents in the first place. Did you ever notice how the liberals first demonize something and then say taxing the living crap out of the same entity all of a sudden makes everything better? And how is taxing oil going to create more energy and ease prices?
It is hard for me to understand how democrats are so desirous of power; they will destroy the very thing they want to lead. They take strong stances against fictitious enemies like global warming and oil. Ask them how they would handle terrorism and they say we should “talk” with them. Ask them how they should deal with energy issues and they say avoiding the debate works.
Liberalism defies reality and human nature. What they believe is that there is always a way to meet and negotiate any policy. In their Ivy towers, they think everyone has the capacity to be reasonable. They think that to be enlightened is to move beyond violence and have everyone in the world be peaceful and reasonable, able to solve any issues with reasoning. But to be truly enlightened is to know that humans aren’t and never will be wired like that. And so, since they can’t deal with the republicans and win, they will avoid them. Reasonable debate is unreasonable to the left if their side loses and to be enlightened is to know that losing is an option.
So in the world of the left and the democrats, walking away from a room full of republicans and avoiding a vote that will do something, is the way to deal with the energy problems of America. Republicans are only reasonable if they agree with democrat policies and if they aren’t, then like the unreal world of the left, they just avoid it. Like ostriches, the left’s heads aren’t where they should be, but the left doesn’t have them in the sand, they have them up their butts.
Some good articles;
You think Franken will get the message?
http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080809/NEWS01/108080047/1009
Isn’t it fun to see the left eating itself?
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/plans-for-clinton-convention-rallies-intensify-2008-08-10.html
Maybe she should have gone to a public school and participated in the free condom program?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/09/AR2008080901298_pf.html
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
The Republicans won’t give up the House and for a very good reason; there needs to be a vote. The democrat speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, refuses to let there be a vote for new oil exploration and drilling and has adjourned the senate for a five week paid vacation. She doesn’t want there to be a vote because public opinion and pressure has assured the passing of a new energy policy. So, Pelosi, a left wing radical from San Francisco, would rather appease the tree hugging nut jobs on the left for symbolic reasons than have a common sense policy that would actually produce new and cheaper energy for Americans.
The left has suggested releasing oil from the national oil reserves to help lower gas prices. Well, if getting more energy into the supply lines would ease prices, wouldn’t it make sense to actually produce more fuel? We have coal, shale, natural gas and oil, both on shore and off and yet, a lethargic majority has allowed a radical left wing run our nation’s energy policies for far too long and we find ourselves unable to even help ourselves anymore because of the evil they have wrought. We have let environmentalists brain wash the general public with ads portraying crying Indians and movies about greedy companies producing dangerous nuclear plants. Average citizens have been betrayed by people who said they were interested in keeping America clean and pristine. Americans thought it was common sense to want a clean environment and it is, unfortunately people with no common sense have been and are allowed to make policy and pass laws that are hurting us all and literally destroying the country.
Nancy Pelosi says we need to quote “save the world” from global warming. I didn’t know it was a representative from California’s job to act so globally. Actually, I thought the representatives of American citizens took an oath to honor, obey and protect the Constitution. What a narcissistic person she must be to think she has the power to change the atmosphere and natural course of events, if global warming is even real, and yet she won’t allow the vote so Americans can help themselves.
And so, democrats want Americans to inflate their tires, turn up their air conditioning and turn down their heat and wear sweaters in doors. Their energy policies include taxing oil companies and giving that money to their constituents even though that money is going to come from those same constituents in the first place. Did you ever notice how the liberals first demonize something and then say taxing the living crap out of the same entity all of a sudden makes everything better? And how is taxing oil going to create more energy and ease prices?
It is hard for me to understand how democrats are so desirous of power; they will destroy the very thing they want to lead. They take strong stances against fictitious enemies like global warming and oil. Ask them how they would handle terrorism and they say we should “talk” with them. Ask them how they should deal with energy issues and they say avoiding the debate works.
Liberalism defies reality and human nature. What they believe is that there is always a way to meet and negotiate any policy. In their Ivy towers, they think everyone has the capacity to be reasonable. They think that to be enlightened is to move beyond violence and have everyone in the world be peaceful and reasonable, able to solve any issues with reasoning. But to be truly enlightened is to know that humans aren’t and never will be wired like that. And so, since they can’t deal with the republicans and win, they will avoid them. Reasonable debate is unreasonable to the left if their side loses and to be enlightened is to know that losing is an option.
So in the world of the left and the democrats, walking away from a room full of republicans and avoiding a vote that will do something, is the way to deal with the energy problems of America. Republicans are only reasonable if they agree with democrat policies and if they aren’t, then like the unreal world of the left, they just avoid it. Like ostriches, the left’s heads aren’t where they should be, but the left doesn’t have them in the sand, they have them up their butts.
Some good articles;
You think Franken will get the message?
http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080809/NEWS01/108080047/1009
Isn’t it fun to see the left eating itself?
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/plans-for-clinton-convention-rallies-intensify-2008-08-10.html
Maybe she should have gone to a public school and participated in the free condom program?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/09/AR2008080901298_pf.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)