Let the democrat and liberal weeping and cries of "Dastardly racist bigot homophobic cheating scum sucking Bush-supporters!" commence!
I mean, it's far too early to call, but it all looks so good! He's only up by about 4% I think right now, but hope has been so far away since Nov 2009 that even the faintest glimmer makes Conservatives weak in the knees.
More later!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Brown vs. Croakley
This is to the wire. The polls look good in favor of Brown, but the cynic in me holds out that with the ACORN/Black Panther policies that helped get Obama elected and the outright CHEATING that got Chris Gregoire elected over Dino Rossi (she got 1/3 recounts and still got placed in office) in WA State will come into play.
Obama is out "stumping" and wasting his time because he knows that the success of his hopefully doomed healthcare bill is riding in the balance. And Brown is a social media HERO with 3-1 fans in the Twitter and Facebook areanas while his opponent is playing old school policcs and hoping BO is enough to drag her over the finish line.
Not so. Here's hoping. We'll know for sure on Wednesday. They can't cheat if it's not close, right?
Hey, and wasn't the GOP supposed to be dead?
Obama is out "stumping" and wasting his time because he knows that the success of his hopefully doomed healthcare bill is riding in the balance. And Brown is a social media HERO with 3-1 fans in the Twitter and Facebook areanas while his opponent is playing old school policcs and hoping BO is enough to drag her over the finish line.
Not so. Here's hoping. We'll know for sure on Wednesday. They can't cheat if it's not close, right?
Hey, and wasn't the GOP supposed to be dead?
Friday, January 8, 2010
And like, one year ago, the GOP was dead?
GIVE ME A BREAK! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You should google "Obama" and read what the news sources and reporters that were one minute hailing him are now saying. Here's a snippet of the headlines. Note, I'm not citing anything by FoxNews...who apparently is the news organization that is not even a news organization (Obama's opinion ala Robert Gibbs) and is out to get the WH. Sooo, are all these people in on the anti-Obama conspiracy?
This is bipartisan, see? It's just becoming more and more obvious.
Is Obama being abandoned?
Two key Democratic senators are retiring. Rahm Emanuel might be headed back to Chicago. What's happening with Obama's allies?
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/104787/Is_Obama_being_abandoned
Gibbs Refuses to Address Question About Obama's Broken C-SPAN Promises
It wasn't even a FOX News reporter that asked the question.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646560762972536.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_RIGHTBelowPepperandSalt
Obama's 'buck' still often stops with Bush
The president continues to lay blame on his predecessor for many problems
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34771917/ns/politics-white_house/
Mr. President, fire somebody, anybody
http://www.smdp.com/Articles-c-2010-01-08-67505.113116_Mr_President_fire_somebody_anybody.html
"In response to the Christmas "underpants bomber," an outraged President Obama called his security and intelligence people together. The headline on the front page of the Los Angeles Times the next day read, "Obama gives his team earful over foiled plot." Our intelligence and security measures failed and almost led to a disaster, and his response was to give the security people "an earful?" I guess he rejected the more severe punishment of giving them a timeout and making them sit in the corner. Mr. President, make it seem like you're taking some kind of strong action. Fire somebody."
Obama's Guantanamo obsession
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/07/AR2010010703245.html
And the best one of all:
For Liberalism, It's Hangover Time
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-201001061058tmsjgoldbrgctnjg-a20100107jan07,0,3506542.story
This is bipartisan, see? It's just becoming more and more obvious.
Is Obama being abandoned?
Two key Democratic senators are retiring. Rahm Emanuel might be headed back to Chicago. What's happening with Obama's allies?
http://www.theweek.com/art
Gibbs Refuses to Address Question About Obama's Broken C-SPAN Promises
It wasn't even a FOX News reporter that asked the question.
http://online.wsj.com/arti
Obama's 'buck' still often stops with Bush
The president continues to lay blame on his predecessor for many problems
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/i
Mr. President, fire somebody, anybody
http://www.smdp.com/Articl
"In response to the Christmas "underpants bomber," an outraged President Obama called his security and intelligence people together. The headline on the front page of the Los Angeles Times the next day read, "Obama gives his team earful over foiled plot." Our intelligence and security measures failed and almost led to a disaster, and his response was to give the security people "an earful?" I guess he rejected the more severe punishment of giving them a timeout and making them sit in the corner. Mr. President, make it seem like you're taking some kind of strong action. Fire somebody."
Obama's Guantanamo obsession
http://www.washingtonpost.
And the best one of all:
For Liberalism, It's Hangover Time
http://www.chicagotribune.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Our President is Not Protecting Us
"The president’s job is to use every tool he has to keep America safe. The words we’ve heard from Mr. Obama tell us that this president refuses to confront the seriousness of the dangers we face."
"President Obama’s team has scared the nation over the past week with pronouncements so crazy they leave you breathless. But worse still are the decisions they’ve made, decisions that show America is in danger, and that those charged with protecting us are failing to treat this life-and-death struggle as the war that it really is.
------- First, after a terrorist attack was thwarted only by a detonation malfunction and brave airline passengers, a blissfully-clueless Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told an incredulous nation that our “system worked.” That comment was so absurd that no further comment is necessary. She should have been forced to resign within hours.
...
------------- But the worst words came from the president himself. First is “allegedly.” President Obama said that Nigerian Islamic terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab “allegedly” tried to blow up an American airliner to kill hundreds of Americans You use the word “allegedly” if you’re in the media or if you’re prosecuting a criminal, not referring to undeniable acts of war.
The second is that Obama labeled this terrorist act an “isolated extremist.” We know that: (1) he’s affiliated with Al Qaeda, (2) he had help getting onto the plane, (3) he carried military-style high explosives that were likely prepared for him by experts, and (4) was in contact with the same radical Muslim imam who encouraged the Fort Hood terrorist. There are also reports that there may have been an accomplice on the plane. To call him an “isolated extremist” in the face of such facts willfully ignores the obvious truth that this was a coordinated terrorist attack.
And third is the longstanding criticism that Obama does not allow his administration describe what we are involved in the "War on Terror." They speak of "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan—usually with a gratuitous slap at George Bush or Dick Cheney—but not the fact that America is in a global war with Islamic jihadists.
What do these words tell us about President Obama? We need only consider his actions, which are perfectly consistent with his words.
He’s ordered the Christmas bomber to be treated as a criminal defendant in our domestic law enforcement system. That means he’s presumed innocent and protected by every provision in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, including all the Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
One of those rights is the right to legal counsel. As a lawyer, if I were the court-appointed attorney for Abdulmutallab, the first thing I would tell him, “You have the right to remain silent. So shut up. Don’t tell anyone anything, except me. We’ll let the Feds know that you have things you could share, and that they’ll have to offer you a pretty sweet deal if they want to get a peep out of you.”
We should all feel for Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, who had to go on the Sunday morning talk shows and suggest that somehow this decision to put the bomber in the civilian system was for our nation’s benefit. -- America gets nothing out of that deal. There’s no trade-off. There’s no advantage.
Everything we can do in a law enforcement setting, such as using the FBI for investigation and interrogation, can also be done with someone held by our military for acts of war. We can use every tool of national power when acting against our wartime enemies.
Since he wasn’t wearing a uniform, Abdulmutallab is not even covered by the Geneva Conventions or entitled to prisoner-of-war status. Obama could simply have him executed without a public hearing as a foreign saboteur, the way Democratic President FDR did to Germans we captured on U.S. soil in 1942. (A decision which was upheld after-the-fact by the Supreme Curt in "Ex parte Quirin.")
By contrast, our hands are tied when we’re dealing with a criminal suspect.
This is the same mindset that brings known terrorists to New York City for civilian trials. It’s the same mindset that says we must close Gitmo and put these terrorists in federal prisons.
It’s the same mindset that this nation had the day before 9/11. It’s a mindset that refuses to accept that we are at war, that the Bill of Rights is a unique set of protections intended for American citizens in our own country, and that our president must use every power granted to him under Article II of the Constitution to defeat our wartime enemies and protect this nation.
Instead, the words that we’ve heard from our president and his team over recent days—words confirmed by actions—tell us that this president refuses to confront the seriousness of the dangers we face.
The president’s job is to use every tool he has to protect us. We are being ill-served by our commander-in-chief."
By Ken Klukowski, a fellow and senior legal analyst at the American Civil Rights Union. He is a frequent contributor to the Fox Forum.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/05/ken-klukowski-obama-christmas-terror-attack/
--------------
Shocked right? This is the "let's put guns in the rifles" mentality that is destroying us. The idea that if we do nothing we'll be left alone and appease the creeps trying to kill people for no reason. I really think some people don't GET that we got attacked originally for the following reasons "SUPPORTING ISRAEL" and probably women walking around without head coverings and showing leg on TV, etc.
The blame America and Apologizer in Chief gig is so pointless. Here are your options for ending being attacked: abandon Israel to the Middle-East mad house, pull every single troop from every other country and build a HUGE wall (and coast to coast missle shield maybe) around our entire nation, and then prevent anyone else from being allowed in. Bam, attacks over. Oh, and for good measure, go on TV some more and apologize for slavery (again), Christianity, small pox blankets given to the "Native Americans" (which is a lie, btw), freedom, voting, democracy, and even THINKING we should do anything to help anyone else.
And here's the other way: KILL THEM. Thanks GWB for doing the harder and more effective option of these two. Obama....not mad, just SOO disappointed in you.
"President Obama’s team has scared the nation over the past week with pronouncements so crazy they leave you breathless. But worse still are the decisions they’ve made, decisions that show America is in danger, and that those charged with protecting us are failing to treat this life-and-death struggle as the war that it really is.
------- First, after a terrorist attack was thwarted only by a detonation malfunction and brave airline passengers, a blissfully-clueless Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told an incredulous nation that our “system worked.” That comment was so absurd that no further comment is necessary. She should have been forced to resign within hours.
...
------------- But the worst words came from the president himself. First is “allegedly.” President Obama said that Nigerian Islamic terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab “allegedly” tried to blow up an American airliner to kill hundreds of Americans You use the word “allegedly” if you’re in the media or if you’re prosecuting a criminal, not referring to undeniable acts of war.
The second is that Obama labeled this terrorist act an “isolated extremist.” We know that: (1) he’s affiliated with Al Qaeda, (2) he had help getting onto the plane, (3) he carried military-style high explosives that were likely prepared for him by experts, and (4) was in contact with the same radical Muslim imam who encouraged the Fort Hood terrorist. There are also reports that there may have been an accomplice on the plane. To call him an “isolated extremist” in the face of such facts willfully ignores the obvious truth that this was a coordinated terrorist attack.
And third is the longstanding criticism that Obama does not allow his administration describe what we are involved in the "War on Terror." They speak of "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan—usually with a gratuitous slap at George Bush or Dick Cheney—but not the fact that America is in a global war with Islamic jihadists.
What do these words tell us about President Obama? We need only consider his actions, which are perfectly consistent with his words.
He’s ordered the Christmas bomber to be treated as a criminal defendant in our domestic law enforcement system. That means he’s presumed innocent and protected by every provision in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, including all the Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
One of those rights is the right to legal counsel. As a lawyer, if I were the court-appointed attorney for Abdulmutallab, the first thing I would tell him, “You have the right to remain silent. So shut up. Don’t tell anyone anything, except me. We’ll let the Feds know that you have things you could share, and that they’ll have to offer you a pretty sweet deal if they want to get a peep out of you.”
We should all feel for Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, who had to go on the Sunday morning talk shows and suggest that somehow this decision to put the bomber in the civilian system was for our nation’s benefit. -- America gets nothing out of that deal. There’s no trade-off. There’s no advantage.
Everything we can do in a law enforcement setting, such as using the FBI for investigation and interrogation, can also be done with someone held by our military for acts of war. We can use every tool of national power when acting against our wartime enemies.
Since he wasn’t wearing a uniform, Abdulmutallab is not even covered by the Geneva Conventions or entitled to prisoner-of-war status. Obama could simply have him executed without a public hearing as a foreign saboteur, the way Democratic President FDR did to Germans we captured on U.S. soil in 1942. (A decision which was upheld after-the-fact by the Supreme Curt in "Ex parte Quirin.")
By contrast, our hands are tied when we’re dealing with a criminal suspect.
This is the same mindset that brings known terrorists to New York City for civilian trials. It’s the same mindset that says we must close Gitmo and put these terrorists in federal prisons.
It’s the same mindset that this nation had the day before 9/11. It’s a mindset that refuses to accept that we are at war, that the Bill of Rights is a unique set of protections intended for American citizens in our own country, and that our president must use every power granted to him under Article II of the Constitution to defeat our wartime enemies and protect this nation.
Instead, the words that we’ve heard from our president and his team over recent days—words confirmed by actions—tell us that this president refuses to confront the seriousness of the dangers we face.
The president’s job is to use every tool he has to protect us. We are being ill-served by our commander-in-chief."
By Ken Klukowski, a fellow and senior legal analyst at the American Civil Rights Union. He is a frequent contributor to the Fox Forum.
http://www.foxnews.com/opi
--------------
Shocked right? This is the "let's put guns in the rifles" mentality that is destroying us. The idea that if we do nothing we'll be left alone and appease the creeps trying to kill people for no reason. I really think some people don't GET that we got attacked originally for the following reasons "SUPPORTING ISRAEL" and probably women walking around without head coverings and showing leg on TV, etc.
The blame America and Apologizer in Chief gig is so pointless. Here are your options for ending being attacked: abandon Israel to the Middle-East mad house, pull every single troop from every other country and build a HUGE wall (and coast to coast missle shield maybe) around our entire nation, and then prevent anyone else from being allowed in. Bam, attacks over. Oh, and for good measure, go on TV some more and apologize for slavery (again), Christianity, small pox blankets given to the "Native Americans" (which is a lie, btw), freedom, voting, democracy, and even THINKING we should do anything to help anyone else.
And here's the other way: KILL THEM. Thanks GWB for doing the harder and more effective option of these two. Obama....not mad, just SOO disappointed in you.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
What protesting really looks like - Iran
When we think of protestors in the U.S., we think of the 60's and 70's drug puffing hippies and sticking flowers in rifles. We think of WTO and the punks who terrorized business men and women, destroyed property, and were arrested by the hundred for assulting people walking around and police officers trying to keep the peace.
We're allowed to peacefully assemble in the U.S. It's a right we take for granted and a right that most other people don't have. Think back to the male and female students who were run over by tanks in China. 21-years ago. Google or Wiki "Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989" if you need a refresher. Now, the latest breed of REAL protestors are dying once again, this time fighting for basic rights in Iran. It began in the summer and now more people are dying.
The great thing of this computer dominated age is that we are getting reports, blogs, twitter postings, and YouTube videos of it all right after it happens.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/12/iran-more-video-footage-from-protests-surface-2.html
"Meanwhile, chants of anti-government slogans continue to be heard throughout many parts of Tehran. In the video below, protesters are shouting a well-known anti-government slogan, which translates to: "Artillery, tanks and Basijis no longer have an effect.""
Iran! Some of us long for freedom FOR you! And we wait anxiously to see if our government will do anything to help or if we'll be forced to watch you struggle alone. We hope for you. We pray for you.
We're allowed to peacefully assemble in the U.S. It's a right we take for granted and a right that most other people don't have. Think back to the male and female students who were run over by tanks in China. 21-years ago. Google or Wiki "Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989" if you need a refresher. Now, the latest breed of REAL protestors are dying once again, this time fighting for basic rights in Iran. It began in the summer and now more people are dying.
The great thing of this computer dominated age is that we are getting reports, blogs, twitter postings, and YouTube videos of it all right after it happens.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/12/iran-more-video-footage-from-protests-surface-2.html
"Meanwhile, chants of anti-government slogans continue to be heard throughout many parts of Tehran. In the video below, protesters are shouting a well-known anti-government slogan, which translates to: "Artillery, tanks and Basijis no longer have an effect.""
Iran! Some of us long for freedom FOR you! And we wait anxiously to see if our government will do anything to help or if we'll be forced to watch you struggle alone. We hope for you. We pray for you.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
You May Be A Fundamentalist Atheist If...
If you haven't read this, you need to. It's tongue in cheek and yet, I've seen a LOT of these come into play in my conversations with atheists in my life. I will just say as a disclaimer:
I LOVE THEM, GOD LOVES THEM, even though the majority are mean, bitter, angry, and foolish people. I do love them because God said so. Which is a sample of the irony of life!
"
http://englishatheist.org/fundyath.shtml
It goes on and on and on and on! It is an excellent read! :)
I LOVE THEM, GOD LOVES THEM, even though the majority are mean, bitter, angry, and foolish people. I do love them because God said so. Which is a sample of the irony of life!
"
Although you've memorized a half a dozen proofs that He doesn't exist, you still think you're God's gift to the ignorant masses.
You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.
You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" and, "Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect examples of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God's omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.
You are a person who absolutely believes that life came from nonlife, yet absolutely deny the possibility of anyone rising from the dead.
You won't bet $10 on the football game because a 50/50 chance isn't good enough, but you have no problem gambling with your life on the nearly impossible odds of a cell randomly generating from nothing.
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate the whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either stands together or falls apart'. However, when a Creationist tries to invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this point as 'irrelevant'.
You think the movie “Inherit the Wind” best describes the eternal struggle of how an evolutionist is being treated by creationists in this religious society. And you can personally relate your life to the Scopes Monkey Trial.
You ignore “Time Magazine’s” poll, which states that only 28% of Americans believe in evolution. But of course, “Time Magazine” must been run by creationists.
You teach a belief only held by 28% of a nation, as truth beyond any shadow of a doubt because only educated people believe in evolution. Yet of course, you ignore that fully educated scientists in most other nations have proven against Darwinian theory. Like the Chinese paleontologist who reportedly says: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."
http://englishatheist.org/fundyath.shtml
It goes on and on and on and on! It is an excellent read! :)
Friday, November 20, 2009
Dear Mr President
Obama retreat on war: The return to pre-2001 criminal law mind-set
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The war on terror is over. The decision to prosecute the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, along with his al Qaeda cohorts, in federal court marks a political watershed. President Obama seeks to return America to a pre-Sept. 11, 2001, mind-set. Terrorism is to be treated - as in the 1990s - as a criminal law enforcement matter.
The administration's decision to hold Mohammed's trial in a New York City civilian court, just a few blocks away from ground zero, is irresponsible and grotesque. Foreign terrorists who commit atrocities against American civilians will be given full constitutional and legal protections. They are to be treated like any common murderer or rapist. This will embolden jihadists to wage more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/22/obama-retreat-on-war/
-----------------------
Wow. Do you ever think things can't get worse? I think Conservatives and those who identify as part of the Grand Ole Party have given up on that whole "Well, at least things can't get worse" idea with the current administration. Age old saying "When it rains, it pours" couldn't be more true.
WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?
Unless Obama is hoping that there will be rioting and the bad guys will be taken and executed by a mob, moving terrorists to be tried in a regular court makes no sense.
P.S. Mr President
-- Unemployment is still rising. Confusion abounds, wasn't that what this whole "stimulus" thing of invisible money pumped back into the economy was supposed to do? It was just as dumb when Bush did it, so you figured you'd try again?
-- You need to decide what you're going to do on Afghanistan. We all know the BS you campaigned on isn't going to work, so we're just waiting for your latest ideas. And if you're going to say "I'll ask my generals on the ground" um yes, we've heard from them, and you're still not doing anything.
-- Sorry about that whole not getting the Olympics in Chicago thing.
-- I think the deep bow you did to the emperor or whatever is the least of your problems.
-- How's attacking Fox News going for you?
-- Are you afraid of Sarah Palin? That's not making you look good.
-- Is it bothering you how quickly those who supported you are now joining in on the "complaining" and questioning of your policies? Did you REALLY think you'd get the messianic treatment forever? We're selfish beings and you've got a very small window to please everyone and you missed it.
-- Health care? Seriously? You're seriously adding THIS gargantuan disgusting bill to what is already going wrong?
-- All I can hope is that hope and change come in 2012!
Sincerely, Conservative Minority
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The war on terror is over. The decision to prosecute the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, along with his al Qaeda cohorts, in federal court marks a political watershed. President Obama seeks to return America to a pre-Sept. 11, 2001, mind-set. Terrorism is to be treated - as in the 1990s - as a criminal law enforcement matter.
The administration's decision to hold Mohammed's trial in a New York City civilian court, just a few blocks away from ground zero, is irresponsible and grotesque. Foreign terrorists who commit atrocities against American civilians will be given full constitutional and legal protections. They are to be treated like any common murderer or rapist. This will embolden jihadists to wage more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/22/obama-retreat-on-war/
-----------------------
Wow. Do you ever think things can't get worse? I think Conservatives and those who identify as part of the Grand Ole Party have given up on that whole "Well, at least things can't get worse" idea with the current administration. Age old saying "When it rains, it pours" couldn't be more true.
WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?
Unless Obama is hoping that there will be rioting and the bad guys will be taken and executed by a mob, moving terrorists to be tried in a regular court makes no sense.
P.S. Mr President
-- Unemployment is still rising. Confusion abounds, wasn't that what this whole "stimulus" thing of invisible money pumped back into the economy was supposed to do? It was just as dumb when Bush did it, so you figured you'd try again?
-- You need to decide what you're going to do on Afghanistan. We all know the BS you campaigned on isn't going to work, so we're just waiting for your latest ideas. And if you're going to say "I'll ask my generals on the ground" um yes, we've heard from them, and you're still not doing anything.
-- Sorry about that whole not getting the Olympics in Chicago thing.
-- I think the deep bow you did to the emperor or whatever is the least of your problems.
-- How's attacking Fox News going for you?
-- Are you afraid of Sarah Palin? That's not making you look good.
-- Is it bothering you how quickly those who supported you are now joining in on the "complaining" and questioning of your policies? Did you REALLY think you'd get the messianic treatment forever? We're selfish beings and you've got a very small window to please everyone and you missed it.
-- Health care? Seriously? You're seriously adding THIS gargantuan disgusting bill to what is already going wrong?
-- All I can hope is that hope and change come in 2012!
Sincerely, Conservative Minority
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Sarah Palin on Oprah - Pt II
I thought the interview went well. Granted, while I do like Sarah Palin and I have no significant affection for Oprah,I thought Oprah was pushing her agenda and was generally snarky in tone with S.P, who I thought took questions in stride and did well in answering them.
It didn't feel like particularly new information was shared but I just appreciated seeing her at her home, with Trig, and seeing more of who she is as a person. I was on Twitter a bunch during and after the interview and I did liked someone's comment that asked if Oprah was intimidated by Sarah Palin. Could be! Oprah doesn't hold any power of Sarah, and they both know it. Oprah's bad opinion of Sarah Palin (which is already fairly obvious, especially on a political level) hasn't hurt her yet, and the continued attitude doesn't make conservatives like her (S.P.) less.
Sarah Palin kept things civil, even in talking about how annoying Katie Couric was and ended the interview in a complimentry way to Oprah, which I thought was sweet.
Here's my deal with Sarah Palin right now. As a person (as much as people CAN know 'as a person' people in politics) I like her. I think she's smart. I'm excited to see what's next for her. I still don't like and don't know all the facts about her dropping out of being Alaska's governor. I wish she'd finished that out.
Are people out to get her? Sure. A) She's a woman and B) she's conservative. And like being a black conservative, as a female conservative you'll be called any number of things from a traitor to a b****...
Newsweek's cover of S.P. was more of the same. Sexism and bias.
Not to mention it's a picture Newsweek basically stole from a running magazine (photographer illegally allowed a second magazine to use this picture while under contract with another).
And finally, MSNBC used a FAKE picture of Sarah Palin in a stars and stripes bikini holding a semi-automatic rifle. Gimme a BREAK!
Good luck getting to a day where this kind of sexism (on both sides) is not allowed when half the country's women are buying into this and spewing their own hatred for Sarah Palin. Why? Because she has too many kids? Because she didn't abort the child with down syndrome? Because she hates other women? (That's code for being anti-abortion).
It didn't feel like particularly new information was shared but I just appreciated seeing her at her home, with Trig, and seeing more of who she is as a person. I was on Twitter a bunch during and after the interview and I did liked someone's comment that asked if Oprah was intimidated by Sarah Palin. Could be! Oprah doesn't hold any power of Sarah, and they both know it. Oprah's bad opinion of Sarah Palin (which is already fairly obvious, especially on a political level) hasn't hurt her yet, and the continued attitude doesn't make conservatives like her (S.P.) less.
Sarah Palin kept things civil, even in talking about how annoying Katie Couric was and ended the interview in a complimentry way to Oprah, which I thought was sweet.
Here's my deal with Sarah Palin right now. As a person (as much as people CAN know 'as a person' people in politics) I like her. I think she's smart. I'm excited to see what's next for her. I still don't like and don't know all the facts about her dropping out of being Alaska's governor. I wish she'd finished that out.
Are people out to get her? Sure. A) She's a woman and B) she's conservative. And like being a black conservative, as a female conservative you'll be called any number of things from a traitor to a b****...
Newsweek's cover of S.P. was more of the same. Sexism and bias.
Not to mention it's a picture Newsweek basically stole from a running magazine (photographer illegally allowed a second magazine to use this picture while under contract with another).And finally, MSNBC used a FAKE picture of Sarah Palin in a stars and stripes bikini holding a semi-automatic rifle. Gimme a BREAK!
Good luck getting to a day where this kind of sexism (on both sides) is not allowed when half the country's women are buying into this and spewing their own hatred for Sarah Palin. Why? Because she has too many kids? Because she didn't abort the child with down syndrome? Because she hates other women? (That's code for being anti-abortion).
Monday, November 16, 2009
Sarah Palin on Oprah!
Or, she will be, where I can watch it anyway, in about 15 minutes. You should tune in, as I will, and then I will post an update on it!
Saturday, October 24, 2009
We're all still people right?
I've thought about something recently, maybe because I'm trudging through this history book and I am reminded that during the Civil War, we were anything BUT civil. Families and friends turned against each other almost overnight, killing each other over ideology (right?). Well, we're a very happening and sophisticated people now, looking at the wars in Africa as if we're above tribal wars and arguments over land, etc.
The difference is, we don't shoot each other, yet. And the war between the Democrats and the Republicans is definately brutal, as a conservative I'm thinking how Sarah Palin and family were trashed and George W. Bush got disrespected on policy (often rightly) but the way he spoke and other non-policy related things that were just rude and completely ignorant and unnecessary. I'm sure Democrats can think of their own champions and they way they see THEM portrayed unfairly (some would say Obama and I can agree on a FEW of the ways he's been portrayed).
Example, why comparing any American politician to Hilter is the cool thing for the not-in-power-party to do is BEYOND ME. If they've killed 18 million people, yes, get back to me. SHEESH.
So we hate each other really. Twitter conservatives and liberals bash each other back and forth, and I join in. And then I stop for a few days and don't miss it much. Then I log back in and get back into the swing of things. But in the end, it's fruitless, it's pointless. No one changes anyone's mind, we all get frustrated, and further dislike each other.
But if I passed a person trapped on the side of the road in a burning car/bleeding and I found out he/she was a liberal, would I NOT get help or help myself?! NEVER. Obviously. My co-workers, neighbors, people in my church, and my friends whom I love have been liberals and I love them dearly, enjoy their company, and would do a LOT for them (for most, I believe I'd give my life).
But it's easy to forget they are real people, with small children, the majority of whom probably DO want what's best for the U.S. even if we've all got very different ideas of what that is. It's easy to forget especially when we just hear their idiotic statements on TV or see the latest laws or scandals. It's too easy to forget. But we need to remember:
We're all still people right?
The difference is, we don't shoot each other, yet. And the war between the Democrats and the Republicans is definately brutal, as a conservative I'm thinking how Sarah Palin and family were trashed and George W. Bush got disrespected on policy (often rightly) but the way he spoke and other non-policy related things that were just rude and completely ignorant and unnecessary. I'm sure Democrats can think of their own champions and they way they see THEM portrayed unfairly (some would say Obama and I can agree on a FEW of the ways he's been portrayed).
Example, why comparing any American politician to Hilter is the cool thing for the not-in-power-party to do is BEYOND ME. If they've killed 18 million people, yes, get back to me. SHEESH.
So we hate each other really. Twitter conservatives and liberals bash each other back and forth, and I join in. And then I stop for a few days and don't miss it much. Then I log back in and get back into the swing of things. But in the end, it's fruitless, it's pointless. No one changes anyone's mind, we all get frustrated, and further dislike each other.
But if I passed a person trapped on the side of the road in a burning car/bleeding and I found out he/she was a liberal, would I NOT get help or help myself?! NEVER. Obviously. My co-workers, neighbors, people in my church, and my friends whom I love have been liberals and I love them dearly, enjoy their company, and would do a LOT for them (for most, I believe I'd give my life).
But it's easy to forget they are real people, with small children, the majority of whom probably DO want what's best for the U.S. even if we've all got very different ideas of what that is. It's easy to forget especially when we just hear their idiotic statements on TV or see the latest laws or scandals. It's too easy to forget. But we need to remember:
We're all still people right?
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Thanks for the Free Advertising Mr President! - Fox News
Obama drives record Fox News ratings, bumps MSNBC by CNN
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/obama-fox-news-msnbc-cnn-.html
Bad move Mr. President. First, it doesn't look good that you, or White House cronies, continually think that bashing Fox News will prevent any of their viewers from watching it. In addition, you've bumped their ratings a whooping 34%. That means you're helping Fox to DOUBLE CNN's viewership and TRIPLE MSNBC (who both ironically, had mishaps this last week with their highly trained and professional, unbiased I'm sure, reporters basically lying about Rush Limbaugh.)
As a fan of FNC myself, I hope you continue Mr. President. Direct every American to one of the few sources of news and political commentary that actually challenges anything you do. We'll all be better for it.
- Conservative Minority
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/obama-fox-news-msnbc-cnn-.html
Bad move Mr. President. First, it doesn't look good that you, or White House cronies, continually think that bashing Fox News will prevent any of their viewers from watching it. In addition, you've bumped their ratings a whooping 34%. That means you're helping Fox to DOUBLE CNN's viewership and TRIPLE MSNBC (who both ironically, had mishaps this last week with their highly trained and professional, unbiased I'm sure, reporters basically lying about Rush Limbaugh.)
As a fan of FNC myself, I hope you continue Mr. President. Direct every American to one of the few sources of news and political commentary that actually challenges anything you do. We'll all be better for it.
- Conservative Minority
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Facebook Political Quiz
This is what is says if you are determined to be a lefty (a friend of mine on Facebook got that apparently).
"Are you liberal or conservative?" and got the result: You are a solid left-winger!
You desire equality of results and believe that when somebody is knocked down by life, the government should step in and help them out.... Taxes do not concern you much as only the rich will be paying them and you believe they do not pay their fair share. You do not have a strong grasp of economics but believe that those in government do and should be trusted with running most things as long as those in power are not republicans. You distrust many things to do with the military and big business. You believe in personal freedoms but understand when certain ones (like the right to bear arms) need to be curtailed.
HOW SCARY IS THAT PARAGRAPH?!!? Hahaha, I can't get over it. I took it to see what I'd get...ooh the anticipation!
And here were my results:
"Are you liberal or conservative?" and got the result: You are a solid left-winger!
You desire equality of results and believe that when somebody is knocked down by life, the government should step in and help them out.... Taxes do not concern you much as only the rich will be paying them and you believe they do not pay their fair share. You do not have a strong grasp of economics but believe that those in government do and should be trusted with running most things as long as those in power are not republicans. You distrust many things to do with the military and big business. You believe in personal freedoms but understand when certain ones (like the right to bear arms) need to be curtailed.
HOW SCARY IS THAT PARAGRAPH?!!? Hahaha, I can't get over it. I took it to see what I'd get...ooh the anticipation!
And here were my results:
Solid right-winger
You believe in the use of government's power for the common good such as national defense but are wary of government intrusion into your personal life. You believe individual liberties should not be curbed when possible and that America should have a strong defense. You believe that people should succeed and others fail based on their actions and not because government helped one group or another. You believe in equality of opportunity not results. If you do not already, you should vote republican in the next election.
Hey Peeps, it's called the Voter's Pamphlet!
I was talking to one of my female Conservative friends (few and far between) about the upcoming election (Nov 3 in our state) and how she should vote YES on I-1033. I said something to the extent of "Once I get my voter's guide, I'll know what other initiatives are up." And she said she'd already got hers! I frantically ran downstairs and dug through our previously received mail. NOTHING. Where is my guide? How am I supposed to know what is going on?
I just know some liberal higher power decided not to mail ME my guide because I'm conservative. Not that conservative votes are even counted in WA. They just recount until they get the outcome they like. (The last few sentances were in jest. Well, the first sentence was anyway.)
Fortunately, I found it online (that's nifty, saves paper!) here: http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/aud/elections/archives/gen09/vps.htm
I skipped through some of the initial information, like the "traditional sample ballot" they include to try and help the not-so-smart among us make sure their vote counts. We don't want hanging chads or anything. 5 Steps to make sure your vote count:
Oh yes and:
WA Initiative 1033 – Limit growth of government revenue YES
WA Referendum Measure 71 – Don’t undermine Marriage REJECT
I just know some liberal higher power decided not to mail ME my guide because I'm conservative. Not that conservative votes are even counted in WA. They just recount until they get the outcome they like. (The last few sentances were in jest. Well, the first sentence was anyway.)
Fortunately, I found it online (that's nifty, saves paper!) here: http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/aud/elections/archives/gen09/vps.htm
I skipped through some of the initial information, like the "traditional sample ballot" they include to try and help the not-so-smart among us make sure their vote counts. We don't want hanging chads or anything. 5 Steps to make sure your vote count:
- Bring identification when voting at a polling place. (Liberals don't care if other liberals don't bring identification...like the homeless people they shipped into the polls in Ohio)
- Mark your ballot correctly. (Duh.)
- Sign your ballot envelope when voting by mail.
- Mail your ballot prior to election day. (Wait, you don't count the ones you receive 3 weeks later?)
- Keep your registration up to date. (See my comment on #1)
- Vote NO on "Proposed Amendment Charter #1" - Reason? Why should we extend the term limits for WA politicians from 2 terms to 3? I say we shouldn't because given the state of WA politics, we need new people more often than not. Let people only screw up our state government and economy 2 times.
- Vote NO on "Proposed Amendment Charter #2" - It proposes moving certain elections to "off years". Both sides of the argument said "If you voted yes on #1, vote yes on this one too" or "If you voted no on #1, vote no for this too!" I think it's a dumb idea. Why do they need to move elections around? So we can be in a constant state of running for office?
- Vote NO on "Proposed Amendment Charter #3" to eliminate Run Off Voting - Run off voting means that voters can select their FIRST choice for an office and then two the lesser of the remaining evils for your second, third choices. I've liked that idea ever since I learned about it.
- Auditor: Jan Shabro (she's done a good job)
- Port of Tacoma Commissioner Position #1: Connie Bacon (the other guy wants to widen the Panama Canal...)
- Port of Tacoma Commissioner Position #2: Dick Marzano
- Port of Tacoma Commissioner Position #4: Don Meyer
- Lakewood Council Position #1: Darrel Shiley
- Lakewood " " #2: Connie Colman Lacadie
- Lakewood #3 : Jason Whalen
Oh yes and:
WA Initiative 1033 – Limit growth of government revenue YES
WA Referendum Measure 71 – Don’t undermine Marriage REJECT
Monday, October 12, 2009
What Youth Can Do to be More Informed
- While the left constantly trashes the Fox News Network, they don't have a problem with where the majority of teenagers/young adults are getting their political know-how (or lack thereof): "Comedy Central" or MTV. If the people in the 18-29 age group actually subscribed to a variety of news (Yes, variety, including the Associated Press, where a lot of internet sources steal their news word-for-word anyway) and used all the different biases (it's impossible to write without the influence of one's personal opinion) to even it all out, maybe we'd be better off.
- Understand that the world isn't like highschool. Popularity doesn't mean a person is good, it doesn't mean a person is smart, it doesn't mean ANYTHING. Popularity in politics is about as long-lasting as SNL skit and usually far more entertaining to follow. Just because your neighbor believes something is true or is going to vote for a Presidential candidate is not good enough reason for another person to do it. Every choice should be evaluated personality, the logic of both sides of the argument evaluated, and the actual facts discovered.
- Resist the urge to name call or insult in other ways, those you disagree with. Try sticking to disagreeing on policy and avoid the personal attacks.
- Care about it to begin with. I've found my age-group in two MAIN categories. Those who don't care and those who don't have any clue. In the don't care group, that's almost more sad. At least I don't have to cancel out their votes, but if you can't care enough even to vote about things that WILL affect us in the future, what incentive do you have to know more about it. My own knowledge is woefully inadequate, but for many of my peers, their lack of interest in knowledge in our system is disheartening. If you think that issues like property rights don't matter to you now, picture when you own property! If you think foreign policy doesn't affect you, look at the nations that were destroyed within a generation by attempts at socialism and communism, dictatorships, and the restriction or complete destruction of speech, gun, and religious freedoms. It will all come to bear in our lives at some point...take an interest while you actually get a voice about it.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm ashamed that our peer-group is so easily manipulated by commercial whim and the not-to-wholesome desires of some of our political elite.
Rush interview with MSNBC
Kudos to MSNBC for a fairly evenhanded handling of their interview with Rush Limbaugh. If you hate the guy, you're the one who should read it. It might give you some actual perspective instead of just listening to left-winged rhetoric about him.
"Rush Limbaugh realizes you don’t become America’s most popular radio talk-show host without having the hide of an elephant. And he’s long subscribed to a theory: His 21 million listeners know him and love him, and the other 280 million Americans, well, they don’t pay the bills.
"Rush Limbaugh realizes you don’t become America’s most popular radio talk-show host without having the hide of an elephant. And he’s long subscribed to a theory: His 21 million listeners know him and love him, and the other 280 million Americans, well, they don’t pay the bills.
“My objective is to satisfy [my] audience so they come back the next day,” Limbaugh told TODAY national correspondent Jamie Gangel in a wide-ranging, three-hour interview, excerpts of which air on TODAY Monday and Tuesday.
“Most of my critics don’t even listen to me; they are clueless,” Limbaugh said. “They just go to Web sites that report what I say out of context. I’m amazed at the Democrats and the media who do not know what’s going on in my world. I know what’s going on in theirs. I study ’em. I watch ’em every day.”"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33244211/ns/today-today_people/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)