My 6-year old son is in the phase where he wants to be the fastest, smartest, best. But most of all, he wants to win. All the time. Even if it means changing the rules on the fly so that only he is qualified to win. Sound familiar?
The Demowhacks in Massachusetts were so worried that Governor Mitt Romney might be able to appoint a replacement for John Kerry should Kerry win the Presidency (thank God for small favors), that they changed the law in Massachusetts taking that power away from the governor and requiring a special election. Of course they didn't say they wanted to do it because they were afraid of Romney appointing a Republican (gasp!), instead they claimed that the gubenatorial appointment power was undemocratic and that only the people should be allowed to choose a replacement.
Fast forward to 2009, just days after Ted Kennedy's death, and my how the tune has changed! Now the party line is that the state should not be without full representation especially while important issues like Obamacare are being discussed. What's changed in 5 years? Why there's a Demowhack in the governors office, of course?
Guess what, Demowhacks? Even if we bought your story before about how it was undemocratic to not let the people decide, as soon as you tried to backtrack for your own benefit, you immediatly lost all credibility on the issue.
If the Demowhacks go ahead and change the law back simply to favor their party, I hope that the people of Massachussetts vote them all out of office including the governor and whomever he picks for Kennedy's replacement. I don't even care if you replace them with Democrats or Republicans, just find some people with some spine who can stand by their decisions.
As Dr. Phil would say, "If they'll do it with you, they'll do it to you." You might like them pushing an agenda that ties in with your values, but what happens when it becomes more advantageous for them to do an about face? Will you get that sinking feeling? (My homage to Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy).
Friday, August 28, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
What to Nazi's, Klansmen, and evil-mongers have in common?
Well of course they are all names that have been given by Demowhacks to people who are concerned about their healthcare.
Harry Reid said that town hall protesters are "evil-mongers".
Nancy Pelosi said that they "carry swastikas".
And John Dingell said that "the last time I had to confront something like this was when I voted for the civil rights bill and my opponent voted against it. At that time, we had a lot of Ku Klux Klan folks and white supremacists and folks in white sheets and other things running around causing trouble."
Really? We're Nazi's, Klansmen, and evil-mongers?
And yet if a conservative politician even used the wrong term, say queer instead of homosexual, the liberals would be at the gates with pitchforks and torches.
On a similar topic, let's talk about those darned Obama/Joker posters showing up all over LA. A Washington Post writer had this to say about the posters:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080503876.html
The Joker's makeup in "Dark Knight" -- the latest film in a long franchise that dramatizes fear of the urban world -- emphasized the wounded nature of the villain, the sense that he was both a product and source of violence. Although Ledger was white, and the Joker is white, this equation of the wounded and the wounding mirrors basic racial typology in America. Urban blacks -- the thinking goes -- don't just live in dangerous neighborhoods, they carry that danger with them like a virus.
Did you get that? Even though Heath Ledger (and Jack Nicholson) were white, and the character the Joker is white, a poster portraying Obama as the Joker is racist. Huh?
And yet when they published a picture of Bush looking like the Joker in Vanity Fair, that was OK.
http://iusbvision.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/bush-the-joker002.jpg
So to sum up, if you are against Demowhacks in general, you are a Nazi or at least a Klansman (anybody remember a Demowhack named Robert Byrd?), and if you say anything, anything at all against Obama or his policies, then you are a racist.
Oh, and don't forget, you will be reported to flag@whitehouse.gov for your "fishy" behavior!
Harry Reid said that town hall protesters are "evil-mongers".
Nancy Pelosi said that they "carry swastikas".
And John Dingell said that "the last time I had to confront something like this was when I voted for the civil rights bill and my opponent voted against it. At that time, we had a lot of Ku Klux Klan folks and white supremacists and folks in white sheets and other things running around causing trouble."
Really? We're Nazi's, Klansmen, and evil-mongers?
And yet if a conservative politician even used the wrong term, say queer instead of homosexual, the liberals would be at the gates with pitchforks and torches.
On a similar topic, let's talk about those darned Obama/Joker posters showing up all over LA. A Washington Post writer had this to say about the posters:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080503876.html
The Joker's makeup in "Dark Knight" -- the latest film in a long franchise that dramatizes fear of the urban world -- emphasized the wounded nature of the villain, the sense that he was both a product and source of violence. Although Ledger was white, and the Joker is white, this equation of the wounded and the wounding mirrors basic racial typology in America. Urban blacks -- the thinking goes -- don't just live in dangerous neighborhoods, they carry that danger with them like a virus.
Did you get that? Even though Heath Ledger (and Jack Nicholson) were white, and the character the Joker is white, a poster portraying Obama as the Joker is racist. Huh?
And yet when they published a picture of Bush looking like the Joker in Vanity Fair, that was OK.
http://iusbvision.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/bush-the-joker002.jpg
So to sum up, if you are against Demowhacks in general, you are a Nazi or at least a Klansman (anybody remember a Demowhack named Robert Byrd?), and if you say anything, anything at all against Obama or his policies, then you are a racist.
Oh, and don't forget, you will be reported to flag@whitehouse.gov for your "fishy" behavior!
Monday, August 3, 2009
And another video - Go Michelle!
Michelle Malkin gives the lefties of The View a whuppin'!
http://www.breitbart.tv/michelle-malkin-newsflash-george-bush-is-not-in-office-anymore/
http://www.breitbart.tv/michelle-malkin-newsflash-george-bush-is-not-in-office-anymore/
And while we are posting videos...
Let's post this one where Obama and other Dems admit their ultimate goal is a single payer system.
http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/
http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/
Cash for Clunkers?
Everyone is talking about the cash for clunkers program. Liberals claim it is a great way to stimulate the economy. Conservatives question how you can trust the Federal government to rein in heathcare cost estimates if the $1 billon they had put aside that was supposed to cover this program from July-November ran out in one week. I have some other questions...
1) Why pick new cars? There are lots of other industries out there. Dems say because there are a lot of other businesses that are affected by new car sales. OK, then what about the travel industry? You have airlines, hotels, cruise ships, car rentals, taxis, restaurants, resorts, attractions, the list goes on and on. Maybe it's because the government owns car companies but doesn't own any travel companies or hotels.
2) Who are you helping? Are liberals the ones who want to help the poorest people? Are the poorest people going out and buying new cars? No, it's the middle and upper middle class who are buying these cars. In a lot of cases it's people who were already planning on buying a new car soon, so it's not so much an incentive to trade in a clunker, but more of a windfall for something they were going to do anyways.
3) Who are you hurting? Not only is cash for clunkers not helping the poor, it is potentially hurting them. By law, the cars turned in must be destroyed wholesale. Nothing can be removed from them. What that means is not only are there fewer used cars available for people who can only afford to buy used cars, and driving up the prices of the used cars that are available, but there are also going to be fewer parts for cars that people already own, driving those prices up as well. Why not just require the engine be destroyed? How much pollution does a transmission emit? Zero. Doors? Nada. Rims? Zilch. Airbags? Zip. Are you seeing the pattern?
4) Who else are you hurting? Used car companies, used parts companies, repair shops (more expensive parts may lead to less business for them), and new car dealers. How are the new car dealers being hurt when they are getting all this business you ask? Well, for one thing they cannot resell the car, but for another, as mentioned below, a great number of these people turning in their cars are simply accelerating a purchase they were going to make anyways, so each sale now comes out of a company's future sales. Also, its possible that when the program ends, people may hold off buying new cars hoping that Congress might start up a similar program again.
5) Are they really clunkers? People working for companies who shred cars have reported that they are seeing cars that are not clunkers at all. In one case, they got a car that had less than 30,000 miles on it. Of course under the law they have no choice and that car had to be destroyed along with all the others. And the rules exclude cars older than 25 years. Why? Aren't those worse polluters than cars that are 10 years old?
And finally, Mr. Obama and you Dems jamming things like this through the two houses, why do I now have to pay for other people's cars? I don't mind paying taxes for things I use, roads, schools, fire and police departments, but I really resent paying for private property for other people. Let's call it quits at $1 billion wasted on this program and not send another $2 billon down the new car toilet.
1) Why pick new cars? There are lots of other industries out there. Dems say because there are a lot of other businesses that are affected by new car sales. OK, then what about the travel industry? You have airlines, hotels, cruise ships, car rentals, taxis, restaurants, resorts, attractions, the list goes on and on. Maybe it's because the government owns car companies but doesn't own any travel companies or hotels.
2) Who are you helping? Are liberals the ones who want to help the poorest people? Are the poorest people going out and buying new cars? No, it's the middle and upper middle class who are buying these cars. In a lot of cases it's people who were already planning on buying a new car soon, so it's not so much an incentive to trade in a clunker, but more of a windfall for something they were going to do anyways.
3) Who are you hurting? Not only is cash for clunkers not helping the poor, it is potentially hurting them. By law, the cars turned in must be destroyed wholesale. Nothing can be removed from them. What that means is not only are there fewer used cars available for people who can only afford to buy used cars, and driving up the prices of the used cars that are available, but there are also going to be fewer parts for cars that people already own, driving those prices up as well. Why not just require the engine be destroyed? How much pollution does a transmission emit? Zero. Doors? Nada. Rims? Zilch. Airbags? Zip. Are you seeing the pattern?
4) Who else are you hurting? Used car companies, used parts companies, repair shops (more expensive parts may lead to less business for them), and new car dealers. How are the new car dealers being hurt when they are getting all this business you ask? Well, for one thing they cannot resell the car, but for another, as mentioned below, a great number of these people turning in their cars are simply accelerating a purchase they were going to make anyways, so each sale now comes out of a company's future sales. Also, its possible that when the program ends, people may hold off buying new cars hoping that Congress might start up a similar program again.
5) Are they really clunkers? People working for companies who shred cars have reported that they are seeing cars that are not clunkers at all. In one case, they got a car that had less than 30,000 miles on it. Of course under the law they have no choice and that car had to be destroyed along with all the others. And the rules exclude cars older than 25 years. Why? Aren't those worse polluters than cars that are 10 years old?
And finally, Mr. Obama and you Dems jamming things like this through the two houses, why do I now have to pay for other people's cars? I don't mind paying taxes for things I use, roads, schools, fire and police departments, but I really resent paying for private property for other people. Let's call it quits at $1 billion wasted on this program and not send another $2 billon down the new car toilet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
