I've made the point before that liberals are emotional thinkers and conservatives are rational thinkers. Emotional thinkers can only think in the very narrow focus of now; it is impossible for a liberal to consider the long-term affects of anything because it's not possible to have a genuine emotional reaction to something that hasn't happened yet. You can attempt to think about how you will feel when a loved one dies based on past experience, but it doesn't work because thinking and feeling are distinct and autonomous functions. Until something happens you cannot have an emotional feeling for it.
That's why the future costs of all Democrat proposals are meaningless to them. They can't react to something until it has an emotional impact, which is why liberals always frame something in terms of its effect on people. We've all heard about people with autism who can do store all sorts of abstract information in their heads but if you ask them what a new house costs they would say $1. In that sense, autism is just a sever form of liberalism. You could also say that all liberals are "pre-autistic." :)
When considering the issue of enhanced interrogation tactics, or "torture", liberals can only define what they think today based on how they feel about the effect of the interrogation of the subject. They hear that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was "tortured" by simulated drowning, and they are horrified. There's no context - nothing that binds KSM to the deaths of thousands of Americans, only the isolated instance of the waterboarding event. So naturally they are appalled and cry out for justice - Bush and Cheney must pay a heavy price!
(BTW, "waterboarding" is when a subject is restrained on a board and tipped back and then water is poured over his face for exactly 45 seconds. One would think the drowning effect could be easily thwarted by simply holding one's breath.)
On NPR today the discussion included 3 "experts" in related fields, and one of the "experts", a woman, claimed that the "ticking time-bomb" situation, where information must be extracted from a likely subject immediately or something very bad happens, has never happened, so we must always view interrogation in the lens that whatever information there is to be gained should be gathered without time-constraint.
This argument is obviously ridiculous, because the natural implication that the ticking time bomb has never happened is that nothing bad has ever happened in the world - no terrorism or war or hurt feelings. It's delusional. There is always some period of time before a terrorist event which a reasonable person would obviously say is time-critical. Always.
The problem is that the good guys never know when that is - only the bad guys know it. So either you patiently work over a subject with the expectation that nothing bad will ever happen, or you actively and aggressively mine them for what you believe is time-sensitive information about the next big terror event.
A rational thinker understands that, because we cannot predict the future, we must always assume that, based on history, a terror attack may be imminent. Failure to do so is the only failure there is.
An emotional thinker fails to understand the potential for future events based on current action or lack there of because they have no emotional attachment to those potential events.
This is why liberals should never be in charge of the national security, why they don't get it when it comes to interrogation techniques, and why they need to be voted out of power at the earliest possible interval before their lack of foresight destroys what democracy remains for future generations of Americans.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Ted's Dead.
My only other comment is that the press is in the process of writing the history on its most beloved senator, and it's so typical. Of course the man is "humanized" for his faults, while any conservative would be demonized for theirs. Let's get it straight - Teddy was an irresponsible, womanizing drunk who was given his senate seat because of who his brother was and who, perhaps more than anyone else who has ever held power in America, exemplified the old saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Big Surprise: "Torture" Documents Declassified Same Day as WH Admits Deficits Predictions Were Low-Balled
The liberal press is running with the "torture" story with only cursory mention of the deficits. And of course Bama is saying he had nothing to do with it, and any prosecution of the issue has been left to "Independent" AG Eric Holder's discretion.
Yeah, right.
They've kept the torture thing in their back pocket for months just so they could pull it out when they needed to bury some bad news - like the fact that they knowingly low-balled deficit predictions and that the Bama spending blitz will cost at least $2 TRILLION more than the Candidate-In-Chief originally admitted to. But don't bother asking him about it - it's all Bush's fault.
Yeah, right.
They've kept the torture thing in their back pocket for months just so they could pull it out when they needed to bury some bad news - like the fact that they knowingly low-balled deficit predictions and that the Bama spending blitz will cost at least $2 TRILLION more than the Candidate-In-Chief originally admitted to. But don't bother asking him about it - it's all Bush's fault.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Americans Popularity Abroad
A friend of mine who voted for Bama recently suggested he was elected primarily to restore our standing with the rest of the world. My contention was that if that was the case that's a poor reason to choose one's president. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks of you as long as you are doing what's right by the people of this country?
Nevertheless, Candidate-In-Chief Bara Bama has accomplished exactly that. Almost every country in the world holds Americans in significantly higher regard, and believes Bama will do what's best for the world when leading the United States in global affairs, and often by as much as a 6:1 margin over Bush. And all Bama had to do was go on a world tour apologizing for the last 8 years and saying things like we neglected to acknowledge Europe's leadership role in the world... blah, blah, blah.
But ask the average American if they have a more or less favorable opinion of the French or Germans when those countries elect new leaders and you will get indifference. Why? Because the truth is that America is special - we are the lone superpower in the world and what we do is more important to world affairs than what anyone else does. Media in other countries carry he water for Bama just like the media does here, so of course public opinion abroad is tainted favorably toward Bama.
The liberal media is a global sensation, even when it is state-controlled, to slant toward an American President who is willing to capitulate to any other country and concede when the better course is to lead. Bama's weakness is what's popular, not his willingness to be part of the global diplomatic theater.
Collectively the world is being sold on this guy because by nature its nations are inherently adversarial, and what's bad for American interests is good for everyone else's, or so goes the perception and populist message abroad.
The real question is, is a stronger or weaker America better for Americans? Bama and the lefties leading the country right now believe the latter is true.
History will decide.
Nevertheless, Candidate-In-Chief Bara Bama has accomplished exactly that. Almost every country in the world holds Americans in significantly higher regard, and believes Bama will do what's best for the world when leading the United States in global affairs, and often by as much as a 6:1 margin over Bush. And all Bama had to do was go on a world tour apologizing for the last 8 years and saying things like we neglected to acknowledge Europe's leadership role in the world... blah, blah, blah.
But ask the average American if they have a more or less favorable opinion of the French or Germans when those countries elect new leaders and you will get indifference. Why? Because the truth is that America is special - we are the lone superpower in the world and what we do is more important to world affairs than what anyone else does. Media in other countries carry he water for Bama just like the media does here, so of course public opinion abroad is tainted favorably toward Bama.
The liberal media is a global sensation, even when it is state-controlled, to slant toward an American President who is willing to capitulate to any other country and concede when the better course is to lead. Bama's weakness is what's popular, not his willingness to be part of the global diplomatic theater.
Collectively the world is being sold on this guy because by nature its nations are inherently adversarial, and what's bad for American interests is good for everyone else's, or so goes the perception and populist message abroad.
The real question is, is a stronger or weaker America better for Americans? Bama and the lefties leading the country right now believe the latter is true.
History will decide.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Bara Bama, the Perpetual Candidate
Yesterday Bara Bama drew comparisons to his situation today with regard to the deteriorating state of his health care plan and slumping approval ratings to his campaign status immediately before the Iowa Caucus last year. He reminded us that the press had written him off, and he made a come from behind win then and he will do it again with health care.
He also took a jab at Sarah Palin, saying how the media was obsessed with her. The implication is that she was treated more than fairly, which is totally untrue, and only democrats remain blind to reprehensible discrepancy in coverage. I'd like to remind Bama that in October of last year there were 30 major ongoing news stories casting an unfavorable light on Palin, while only 1 story was critical of Biden and not one single headline criticized Bama. Bama's right - the media was obsessed.
And then Bama felt the need to remind us once again that he inherited an unprecedented economic downturn from the previous "conservative Republican administration." Have you caught that yet? No longer are the dems referring to Bush by name, but instead using this language intended to tie the current group of conservative congressmen back to Bush. It's another tactic - little more than a trick.
But tricks will not work, and Bama has yet to realize it. But why would he? He tricked 60 million people into voting for him. So why not run this perpetual campaign, complete with prime-time advertising and network infomercials.
Barack Obama is the perpetual candidate. Has he done anything as President to distinguish himself for that office? No. He continues to sling mud in the trenches with ordinary Americans on the other side of the fence. He's not leading anyone - just ask his fellow democrats in congress. The man has not made America safer, or increased our standing in the world - quite the opposite. By apologizing and pandering to every low-level diplomat who will hear him, he has reduced this country to third-world diplomatic status. Why else would it take an ex-president to go to North Korea to negotiate the release of 2 American journalists?
We will have a signed health care bill in the next 6 months. The Dems have invested everything into this monstrosity and it is now "too big to fail." Their political base would offer them to the dogs if they don't get it don't, so they'll get it done and pound another nail in the US economy's coffin.
But I think we've seen that for Bama, the campaign will never end. As long as the media is behind him - and they desperately want to be behind him - he will campaign. For every silly thing he wants from now on, the guy will always be campaigning, never leading or taking responsibility for his activities, and so long as he is never called on it, George Bush will always be the incumbent.
So from now on I will refer to the man as "The Nominee", or "Democrat nominee for President", or just, "candidate oBama." Until he starts acting like it, the man cannot be called the President of the United States.
He also took a jab at Sarah Palin, saying how the media was obsessed with her. The implication is that she was treated more than fairly, which is totally untrue, and only democrats remain blind to reprehensible discrepancy in coverage. I'd like to remind Bama that in October of last year there were 30 major ongoing news stories casting an unfavorable light on Palin, while only 1 story was critical of Biden and not one single headline criticized Bama. Bama's right - the media was obsessed.
And then Bama felt the need to remind us once again that he inherited an unprecedented economic downturn from the previous "conservative Republican administration." Have you caught that yet? No longer are the dems referring to Bush by name, but instead using this language intended to tie the current group of conservative congressmen back to Bush. It's another tactic - little more than a trick.
But tricks will not work, and Bama has yet to realize it. But why would he? He tricked 60 million people into voting for him. So why not run this perpetual campaign, complete with prime-time advertising and network infomercials.
Barack Obama is the perpetual candidate. Has he done anything as President to distinguish himself for that office? No. He continues to sling mud in the trenches with ordinary Americans on the other side of the fence. He's not leading anyone - just ask his fellow democrats in congress. The man has not made America safer, or increased our standing in the world - quite the opposite. By apologizing and pandering to every low-level diplomat who will hear him, he has reduced this country to third-world diplomatic status. Why else would it take an ex-president to go to North Korea to negotiate the release of 2 American journalists?
We will have a signed health care bill in the next 6 months. The Dems have invested everything into this monstrosity and it is now "too big to fail." Their political base would offer them to the dogs if they don't get it don't, so they'll get it done and pound another nail in the US economy's coffin.
But I think we've seen that for Bama, the campaign will never end. As long as the media is behind him - and they desperately want to be behind him - he will campaign. For every silly thing he wants from now on, the guy will always be campaigning, never leading or taking responsibility for his activities, and so long as he is never called on it, George Bush will always be the incumbent.
So from now on I will refer to the man as "The Nominee", or "Democrat nominee for President", or just, "candidate oBama." Until he starts acting like it, the man cannot be called the President of the United States.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Bama Embraces Wal-Mart style leveraging for Health Care
Bama was on TV again today taking questions from people following online, and once again he was asked if he will pressure Congress to either accept the "Government Option" as their own plan or make their plan available to the general public.
Bama dodged, as always, saying the reason Congress's plan is so good is that the federal bureaucracy can leverage its enormous employee base to get the best care at the best price from insurance companies. This is a purposeful misstatement. Not all Federal employees get the Congressional health plan - that is reserved for members of Congress. Imagine going to the hospital whenever you want, with almost no notice, and being able to see any specialist without first visiting a primary care provider, and immediately walking into any requested test or procedure without any wait and then not paying a penny, ever. That's the Congressional health plan and that's the President's personal plan. All the costs are passed on to the taxpayers. It's a perk of the job and since Congress and the President write the law they can do for themselves anything they wish and we pick up the tab.
Obviously, offering the Congressional health plan to the public is impossible. The Health Care industry would immediately implode in the worst conceivable sense.
On the other hand, Bama likes his plan - he's the president, after all, and congress recently voted to keep theirs and they are immune to any of the ramifications of nationalized health care. They sure as hell don't want to wait for anything or pay for anything or have anyone else tell them what procedures they can or cannot get. They fully expect the rest of us to do exactly that and then thank them in 2010 with easy reelection campaigns. Yeah, right.
In response, Bama said he wants to make the "Government Option" one of the choices that members of congress can select from when choosing their health care plan, as if that would ever happen in a million years. So he dodges and the handlers allow no intelligent rebuttal so it appears to the stupid Bama-worshipers out there as if he's answered the question when what he really just said was, "No."
The next question was about illegals being covered under the bill. Here bama breaks out the lawyer kit, answering the specific question asked, ala Bill Clinton, but not the intended question. He accomplishes this by simply reciting the word "illegals" several times and being comically emphatic that, "Illegals are not covered under any of the current bills!"
Well, okay, but what about "nonresident aliens"? Aka Illegals. If Bama was ever forced to answer the question with the correct terminology, he we either be exposed for what the bill actually contains or as a liar.
The primary bill out there right now, HR 3200, specifically states, "NONRESIDENT ALIENS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual who is a nonresident alien."
Ok, so what's "Subsection (a)"? Here it is: "Tax Imposed- In the case of an individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of-- (the taxpayer's income)" Well, of course that would not apply to illegals, err, nonresident aliens, because they cannot be legally accounted for in the tax rolls. Nevertheless, the implication is that they cannot be turned down for the government option, either. What's "subsection (d)" you ask? Look it up here: http://thomas.loc.gov HR 3200, Section 59B. Basically, it defines anyone who would not otherwise be covered by an existing health plan, specifically not limiting illegals, I mean, nonresident aliens.
The bottom line? Bama is lying. And here's the rub - the guy has never - not even once - ever replied to a specific criticism about specific language in the bill. He can't. If he did he could only reinforce the opposition and expose his lies and misstatements and doom to failure not only this bill but the Democrat party's chances during the mid-terms. He can't do that. He can't tell the truth.
By the way, isn't leveraging buying power the same thing Wal-Mart does? How can the party that vilifies Wal-Mart for its purchasing practices then go and say the government does the same thing and isn't it great?!? Truth to power - that might be great, but it isn't what government does, which is why bureaucracies are inherently wasteful. You cannot simultaneously seek to stimulate the private sector while trying to strangle it with leveraging. Idiot.
Finally, someone asked why any of this was necessary if anyone can just walk off the street into the emergency room and be guaranteed care. Bama's response was that we want to free up the emergency rooms for real emergencies, "Like the child who has tuberculosis and can't get the immediate care they need."
There's Bama going off-script again. The child with tuberculosis? That's his example? That's the best his bleeding heart could come up with? Or does he seriously mean only children with TB should be eligible for emergency care? What about the white nazi child-rapist who while attempting to murder a batch of newborn kittens accidentally stabbed himself in the leg, severing an artery? Can he be refused emergency care?
Bama would probably say, "C'mon, get serious." To which I could only respond, how can anyone take the President seriously?
Seriously.
Bama dodged, as always, saying the reason Congress's plan is so good is that the federal bureaucracy can leverage its enormous employee base to get the best care at the best price from insurance companies. This is a purposeful misstatement. Not all Federal employees get the Congressional health plan - that is reserved for members of Congress. Imagine going to the hospital whenever you want, with almost no notice, and being able to see any specialist without first visiting a primary care provider, and immediately walking into any requested test or procedure without any wait and then not paying a penny, ever. That's the Congressional health plan and that's the President's personal plan. All the costs are passed on to the taxpayers. It's a perk of the job and since Congress and the President write the law they can do for themselves anything they wish and we pick up the tab.
Obviously, offering the Congressional health plan to the public is impossible. The Health Care industry would immediately implode in the worst conceivable sense.
On the other hand, Bama likes his plan - he's the president, after all, and congress recently voted to keep theirs and they are immune to any of the ramifications of nationalized health care. They sure as hell don't want to wait for anything or pay for anything or have anyone else tell them what procedures they can or cannot get. They fully expect the rest of us to do exactly that and then thank them in 2010 with easy reelection campaigns. Yeah, right.
In response, Bama said he wants to make the "Government Option" one of the choices that members of congress can select from when choosing their health care plan, as if that would ever happen in a million years. So he dodges and the handlers allow no intelligent rebuttal so it appears to the stupid Bama-worshipers out there as if he's answered the question when what he really just said was, "No."
The next question was about illegals being covered under the bill. Here bama breaks out the lawyer kit, answering the specific question asked, ala Bill Clinton, but not the intended question. He accomplishes this by simply reciting the word "illegals" several times and being comically emphatic that, "Illegals are not covered under any of the current bills!"
Well, okay, but what about "nonresident aliens"? Aka Illegals. If Bama was ever forced to answer the question with the correct terminology, he we either be exposed for what the bill actually contains or as a liar.
The primary bill out there right now, HR 3200, specifically states, "NONRESIDENT ALIENS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual who is a nonresident alien."
Ok, so what's "Subsection (a)"? Here it is: "Tax Imposed- In the case of an individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of-- (the taxpayer's income)" Well, of course that would not apply to illegals, err, nonresident aliens, because they cannot be legally accounted for in the tax rolls. Nevertheless, the implication is that they cannot be turned down for the government option, either. What's "subsection (d)" you ask? Look it up here: http://thomas.loc.gov HR 3200, Section 59B. Basically, it defines anyone who would not otherwise be covered by an existing health plan, specifically not limiting illegals, I mean, nonresident aliens.
The bottom line? Bama is lying. And here's the rub - the guy has never - not even once - ever replied to a specific criticism about specific language in the bill. He can't. If he did he could only reinforce the opposition and expose his lies and misstatements and doom to failure not only this bill but the Democrat party's chances during the mid-terms. He can't do that. He can't tell the truth.
By the way, isn't leveraging buying power the same thing Wal-Mart does? How can the party that vilifies Wal-Mart for its purchasing practices then go and say the government does the same thing and isn't it great?!? Truth to power - that might be great, but it isn't what government does, which is why bureaucracies are inherently wasteful. You cannot simultaneously seek to stimulate the private sector while trying to strangle it with leveraging. Idiot.
Finally, someone asked why any of this was necessary if anyone can just walk off the street into the emergency room and be guaranteed care. Bama's response was that we want to free up the emergency rooms for real emergencies, "Like the child who has tuberculosis and can't get the immediate care they need."
There's Bama going off-script again. The child with tuberculosis? That's his example? That's the best his bleeding heart could come up with? Or does he seriously mean only children with TB should be eligible for emergency care? What about the white nazi child-rapist who while attempting to murder a batch of newborn kittens accidentally stabbed himself in the leg, severing an artery? Can he be refused emergency care?
Bama would probably say, "C'mon, get serious." To which I could only respond, how can anyone take the President seriously?
Seriously.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Bama in Space!
Once again the Bama administration is blaming its own inept handling of the economy on Bush. This time it has to do with the budget for NASA and the increasing unlikelihood that the United States has a future in Space.
Shortly after seizing power, Bama concocted a panel to review the viability of Bush's proposal to put men on Mars and return to the moon by 2020. Bush proposed this back in 2004, while he was still very popular, and his goal was offered in the spirit of JFK's promise to put a man on the moon. He obviously knew it would be up to his predecessor's to fulfil the promise, as Kennedy did before him.
But instead of assuming the mantle of responsibility and taking action, Bama's panel has decided it's just not economically feasible, and is "...one of the many failed promises of the Bush administration - to set out a very good program without providing the resources to fund it." That quote is from John Lodgson, Bama crony.
Hey John, that's your responsibility now, a-hole! When will Bama ever step up to the plate?
Oh, and the best part - the panel wants to take several more months to ascertain the feasibility before offering an official recommendation. That seems prudent - NOW WHY NOT DO THAT WITH HEALTH CARE!!!
Shortly after seizing power, Bama concocted a panel to review the viability of Bush's proposal to put men on Mars and return to the moon by 2020. Bush proposed this back in 2004, while he was still very popular, and his goal was offered in the spirit of JFK's promise to put a man on the moon. He obviously knew it would be up to his predecessor's to fulfil the promise, as Kennedy did before him.
But instead of assuming the mantle of responsibility and taking action, Bama's panel has decided it's just not economically feasible, and is "...one of the many failed promises of the Bush administration - to set out a very good program without providing the resources to fund it." That quote is from John Lodgson, Bama crony.
Hey John, that's your responsibility now, a-hole! When will Bama ever step up to the plate?
Oh, and the best part - the panel wants to take several more months to ascertain the feasibility before offering an official recommendation. That seems prudent - NOW WHY NOT DO THAT WITH HEALTH CARE!!!
Monday, August 17, 2009
Quick Hit: Bama Administration Admits it Does not Trust Private Business
There's this quote from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius over the weekend that says it all.
On the inclusion of a public option:
"...the essential part is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."
First of all, the marketplace is not new; it's very well established, and there's nothing to turn over. The insurance companies are the insurance market. What is she even talking about? The only thing that is clear and coherent is that she doesn't trust private businesses to make good decisions.
Hey Kathy, guess what? Most Americans don't trust government to make good decisions!
I love that Bama and the cronies, after slamming the operation of Medicare and the VA under Bush, are now singing their praises as if they are the epitome of efficient government performing a service the private sector could not. It's the worst kept secret in America that these institutions are bureaucratic black holes with out of control budgets about to explode as the population steamrolls toward perpetual government assistance. Who's going to pay for that??
I wish Bama would have just stepped up, instead of misleading the public about everything, and sad, yes, we are instituting death panels. If you are very old and need a new hip, too bad! Not that I agree with that, but if he really wants a public option there's simply no way around rationed care, not if the US economy is to remain solvent.
Still not sure that Bama's true goal isn't exactly the insolvency of the US economy...
On the inclusion of a public option:
"...the essential part is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."
First of all, the marketplace is not new; it's very well established, and there's nothing to turn over. The insurance companies are the insurance market. What is she even talking about? The only thing that is clear and coherent is that she doesn't trust private businesses to make good decisions.
Hey Kathy, guess what? Most Americans don't trust government to make good decisions!
I love that Bama and the cronies, after slamming the operation of Medicare and the VA under Bush, are now singing their praises as if they are the epitome of efficient government performing a service the private sector could not. It's the worst kept secret in America that these institutions are bureaucratic black holes with out of control budgets about to explode as the population steamrolls toward perpetual government assistance. Who's going to pay for that??
I wish Bama would have just stepped up, instead of misleading the public about everything, and sad, yes, we are instituting death panels. If you are very old and need a new hip, too bad! Not that I agree with that, but if he really wants a public option there's simply no way around rationed care, not if the US economy is to remain solvent.
Still not sure that Bama's true goal isn't exactly the insolvency of the US economy...
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The President's Case
It's not so much that he's making a case for government health care anymore as it is him blaming conservatives for all the world's ills. His argument, perhaps to weakest political argument ever made, is that opponents of the plan are "bogeymen" who spread "misinformation" through Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. As I noted in my previous post, the opponents have very specific concerns derived directly from the language of the bill, but Bama and his cronies refuse to answer those concerns - because they are unanswerable - instead desperately hoping their reverse scare campaign works.
I'm sure Bama was one of history's worst lawyers, given his total inability to construct a logical counter-argument using fact. Your average high school Mock Trial lawyer would eat him for lunch and ask for seconds. It's no wonder he had to find work as a community organizer where his emotional appeal could be utilized with similarly weak-minded people. The people who filled the room in New Hampshire fit this mold - the mindless automatons who hang on his every word without subjecting those words to any kind of reason. I can guarantee he gets the same reception wherever he goes - the event handlers will go to all means to make sure he's got a partisan crowd that loves him to make it look like everyone still loves Bama and supports his great ideas. Don't be fooled - the majority of the country holds the opposite opinion of the obfuscator-in-chief.
Rest assured, things do not look good for Bama and the Dems. AARP recently reversed their support of the bill and congressmen continue to get drowned out by legitimate concerns across the country, all the while the Democrat leadership attacks instead of explains the bill. Nancy Pelosi is the biggest ally the opposition could ask for - her total disregard for anyone else's point of view and complete lack of social etiquette - inferring that protesters are nazis and attacking them in an Op-ed in USA Today - just makes her seem detached from reality and certainly the public, so if she's supporting the plan it must be full of crazy garbage.
While I was certain a month ago that the Dems would push this thing through regardless of public opinion, today I'm not so sure, and I have our inept President to thank. Without his total bungling of this issue America wouldn't have had a chance to speak. We finally have hope.
I'm sure Bama was one of history's worst lawyers, given his total inability to construct a logical counter-argument using fact. Your average high school Mock Trial lawyer would eat him for lunch and ask for seconds. It's no wonder he had to find work as a community organizer where his emotional appeal could be utilized with similarly weak-minded people. The people who filled the room in New Hampshire fit this mold - the mindless automatons who hang on his every word without subjecting those words to any kind of reason. I can guarantee he gets the same reception wherever he goes - the event handlers will go to all means to make sure he's got a partisan crowd that loves him to make it look like everyone still loves Bama and supports his great ideas. Don't be fooled - the majority of the country holds the opposite opinion of the obfuscator-in-chief.
Rest assured, things do not look good for Bama and the Dems. AARP recently reversed their support of the bill and congressmen continue to get drowned out by legitimate concerns across the country, all the while the Democrat leadership attacks instead of explains the bill. Nancy Pelosi is the biggest ally the opposition could ask for - her total disregard for anyone else's point of view and complete lack of social etiquette - inferring that protesters are nazis and attacking them in an Op-ed in USA Today - just makes her seem detached from reality and certainly the public, so if she's supporting the plan it must be full of crazy garbage.
While I was certain a month ago that the Dems would push this thing through regardless of public opinion, today I'm not so sure, and I have our inept President to thank. Without his total bungling of this issue America wouldn't have had a chance to speak. We finally have hope.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Bama Self-Destructs!
First the airing of grievances: Only a month ago Bama and Biden were on the defensive about the economy, pointing fingers at Bush while noting the "Stimulus" plan was supposed to take 18 months, even though immediate results were promised at the time of signing.
Now that the media has declared the recession "over", Bama is taking credit for it, and the media is trumpeting his economic policies as the saving grace. Absurd. Let me ask this question - if it wasn't for the media, would 90% of us even know there was a recession? Of course not. Bama's "stimulus" has done nothing, and in the long term, once the inflationary impact of his horrendous spending plan is realized, the impact will slow or kill any natural recovery that occurs as a result of capitalism.
A president is always blamed more than he deserves for a bad economy and given more credit than he deserves for a good economy, except when the economic principles that run the whole thing are egregiously violated, as in Bama's case. He will deserve every bit of blame for the ultimate downfall of the American economy, if it happens.
Next, have you noticed that when Bama and his congressional automatons talk about the Health Care bill they only used talking points without referring to one specific complaint about what's in the bill? Bama keeps saying conservatives are using "Scare Tactics." I have to agree with him - this bill is fricking scary. Conservatives have pointed to dozens of of instances, using language straight from the bill, to explain why this thing is awful for Americans. Meanwhile, Democrats only accuse us of spreading lies, without any specifics, and completely dodging all opposition to the actual content of the bill. Would someone in the media PLEASE point that out???
And then there was this gem from Bama today: "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."
Hmmm, which of those 3 was a government entity that was so far in the red the government finally gave up trying to run it. I'll give you a hint - it's not UPS or FedEx. Isn't that a very good reason not to let government run any part of health care? Excellent observation, Bama!
Now that the media has declared the recession "over", Bama is taking credit for it, and the media is trumpeting his economic policies as the saving grace. Absurd. Let me ask this question - if it wasn't for the media, would 90% of us even know there was a recession? Of course not. Bama's "stimulus" has done nothing, and in the long term, once the inflationary impact of his horrendous spending plan is realized, the impact will slow or kill any natural recovery that occurs as a result of capitalism.
A president is always blamed more than he deserves for a bad economy and given more credit than he deserves for a good economy, except when the economic principles that run the whole thing are egregiously violated, as in Bama's case. He will deserve every bit of blame for the ultimate downfall of the American economy, if it happens.
Next, have you noticed that when Bama and his congressional automatons talk about the Health Care bill they only used talking points without referring to one specific complaint about what's in the bill? Bama keeps saying conservatives are using "Scare Tactics." I have to agree with him - this bill is fricking scary. Conservatives have pointed to dozens of of instances, using language straight from the bill, to explain why this thing is awful for Americans. Meanwhile, Democrats only accuse us of spreading lies, without any specifics, and completely dodging all opposition to the actual content of the bill. Would someone in the media PLEASE point that out???
And then there was this gem from Bama today: "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."
Hmmm, which of those 3 was a government entity that was so far in the red the government finally gave up trying to run it. I'll give you a hint - it's not UPS or FedEx. Isn't that a very good reason not to let government run any part of health care? Excellent observation, Bama!
Monday, August 10, 2009
Stone-Cold Lead Pipe Lock #1: The Cash For Clunkers Buyer Bailout
I guarantee we will have a multi-billion dollar bailout for idiots who bought cars they could not afford because of the stupid Cash for Clunkers program. I give it 2 years.
You would have thought Democrats learned their lesson when, 4 years after Bill Clinton famously decreed "Every American has the right to own a home," the country suffered an economic collapse that had been built on the paper mache foundation of home mortgages for people who could not afford to buy homes, regardless of the initial terms.
File this under the "Here we go again," category. By the time this is over, 750,000 people will have purchased new vehicles through the program, amassing approximately $15 Billion in new consumer debt. Now, if a person could afford to pay cash for a car they probably weren't waiting around for this program to do it, so we can safely assume almost all buyers in the program are taking on debt and monthly payments.
Don't bother looking for data - there isn't any. I feel confident in my assumptions, and here are a few more to support my case. First, who is it that owns a vehicle that they are willing to trade in for this program? Does it stand to reason that if you had previously purchased a new vehicle that gets less than 19 mpg, and were still paying it off, that you would want to take on the additional payment? Of course not. This logic also applies to any vehicle that is currently being financed, or at least it should. Also, the vehicles being traded in should have considerable wear on them - you wouldn't trade in your 5 yr old Hummer for $4500 - that's silly. So these cars are typically, well, clunkers.
Well-established adults may be interested in the program, but at the same time are significantly less likely to own a vehicle that meets the above criteria. The middle class family with kids should be disinclined to take on the burden of a monthly car payment, unless they are stupid. Working and non-working lower-class are the most likely to own such vehicles, but again, these people are in no situation to buy a new car. Young people entering the workforce are the most likely group to participate, which brings us to the economy as a whole.
The kid fresh out of school who buys a new vehicle after getting a decent job then gets let go. Uh-oh, now what? And what of the stupid lower-class and middle-class families that buy in and then quickly realize they can't afford the payments?
It's a nightmare situation for Democrats, who effectively incentive debt with this program but have no management of who is qualified or not qualified to take on the debt. It's the mortgage crisis all over again, if on a slightly smaller scale. Once people start defaulting on car loans the Dems will have no recourse but to bail them out. The American taxpayer to the rescue!
My advice to anyone who has participated in Cash for Clunkers is to wait 4 months and then stop paying your car payment and immediately call your congressman, senator, and anyone else who will listen and tell them your sad story. There is no chance they can let all of those people lose their cars and worse, let the auto industry fall flat again! The Democrats stupidity is your gain!
You would have thought Democrats learned their lesson when, 4 years after Bill Clinton famously decreed "Every American has the right to own a home," the country suffered an economic collapse that had been built on the paper mache foundation of home mortgages for people who could not afford to buy homes, regardless of the initial terms.
File this under the "Here we go again," category. By the time this is over, 750,000 people will have purchased new vehicles through the program, amassing approximately $15 Billion in new consumer debt. Now, if a person could afford to pay cash for a car they probably weren't waiting around for this program to do it, so we can safely assume almost all buyers in the program are taking on debt and monthly payments.
Don't bother looking for data - there isn't any. I feel confident in my assumptions, and here are a few more to support my case. First, who is it that owns a vehicle that they are willing to trade in for this program? Does it stand to reason that if you had previously purchased a new vehicle that gets less than 19 mpg, and were still paying it off, that you would want to take on the additional payment? Of course not. This logic also applies to any vehicle that is currently being financed, or at least it should. Also, the vehicles being traded in should have considerable wear on them - you wouldn't trade in your 5 yr old Hummer for $4500 - that's silly. So these cars are typically, well, clunkers.
Well-established adults may be interested in the program, but at the same time are significantly less likely to own a vehicle that meets the above criteria. The middle class family with kids should be disinclined to take on the burden of a monthly car payment, unless they are stupid. Working and non-working lower-class are the most likely to own such vehicles, but again, these people are in no situation to buy a new car. Young people entering the workforce are the most likely group to participate, which brings us to the economy as a whole.
The kid fresh out of school who buys a new vehicle after getting a decent job then gets let go. Uh-oh, now what? And what of the stupid lower-class and middle-class families that buy in and then quickly realize they can't afford the payments?
It's a nightmare situation for Democrats, who effectively incentive debt with this program but have no management of who is qualified or not qualified to take on the debt. It's the mortgage crisis all over again, if on a slightly smaller scale. Once people start defaulting on car loans the Dems will have no recourse but to bail them out. The American taxpayer to the rescue!
My advice to anyone who has participated in Cash for Clunkers is to wait 4 months and then stop paying your car payment and immediately call your congressman, senator, and anyone else who will listen and tell them your sad story. There is no chance they can let all of those people lose their cars and worse, let the auto industry fall flat again! The Democrats stupidity is your gain!
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Republican Party is Back!
On NPR this morning the lead story was about the protests at all the Democrat town hall meetings across the country dealing with the issue of Health Care reform. You've almost certainly heard by now that these local events are the venue for the public's displays of frustration and concern about the current bill and the President's plan to destroy, err, fix health care. Polls show that more than 60% of the public disapprove of the current health care proposals, but the President doesn't care what the people think - he's intent on ramming this monstrosity down our throats.
The NPR story was focused solely on the protests. Have you noticed that when liberals protest something, like with everything Bush did over the last 8 years, its a "spontaneous", "patriotic", "exercise of first amendment rights", but when anyone else protests something they're an "angry mob", "organized by lobbyists", or "ignorant people whipped to a fervor by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News."
Believe me, this characterization is deliberate. The White House is desperate now, and what they are hoping is by painting people who have legitimate concerns about the future of health care as radical, unscrupulous whackos, they can cause a backlash to spur renewed support in their plan. Yes, the White House is directing this effort. All you need to do is listen to the coverage - the talking points are all the same, and NPR was a perfect example of this.
What's more, the White House this week on its blog encouraged good little Democrats to turn in their friends, neighbors, and coworkers if they suspect them of spreading "misinformation" about health care. A new era of McCarthyism is in the works, but this time the paranoia is decidedly pro-communism in the image of Bama's domestic policy.
The problem with Rahm and Bama's backlash theory is that a majority of people actually think they're wrong on this issue. It's hard for Democrats to believe this about their president, so the only possibility in their minds is that the rest of us are lunatics, and the fact that Republican groups are encouraging unrest in the policital discourse is proof enough for them
But what really gets them pissed is that conservatives and Republicans are finally fighting back, and we're using a page out of the liberal playbook that we've never effectively used before - the protest. They hate having their own tactics used against them more than anything, and that coupled with the fact that most people are not on the side of the president on this issue has them very, very concerned.
So pundits like Juan Williams - who is occasionally fair but incurably liberal - say things like, "The Republican party is imploding," when he really means to say "Democrats are scared shitless that in just 6 months they've wasted all the political capital gained by the anti-Bush media offensive staged during the last 6 years." The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the president, but he won't take it - he's not half the man Bush is.
The truth is the Republican Party is back. We don't need someone to lead us, to think for us, we think for ourselves and are lead by our convictions. That's something liberals don't understand - they are the ones who react emotionally and are whipped to a fervor by media pundits, not us. We dissect information, understand how it applies to us and react accordingly. What the protesters are doing is finally letting the liberal elite know their place. Politicians are not better than the rest of us, and its about time the American people stand up and let Washington and Bama know they work for us! We will never work for him.
The NPR story was focused solely on the protests. Have you noticed that when liberals protest something, like with everything Bush did over the last 8 years, its a "spontaneous", "patriotic", "exercise of first amendment rights", but when anyone else protests something they're an "angry mob", "organized by lobbyists", or "ignorant people whipped to a fervor by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News."
Believe me, this characterization is deliberate. The White House is desperate now, and what they are hoping is by painting people who have legitimate concerns about the future of health care as radical, unscrupulous whackos, they can cause a backlash to spur renewed support in their plan. Yes, the White House is directing this effort. All you need to do is listen to the coverage - the talking points are all the same, and NPR was a perfect example of this.
What's more, the White House this week on its blog encouraged good little Democrats to turn in their friends, neighbors, and coworkers if they suspect them of spreading "misinformation" about health care. A new era of McCarthyism is in the works, but this time the paranoia is decidedly pro-communism in the image of Bama's domestic policy.
The problem with Rahm and Bama's backlash theory is that a majority of people actually think they're wrong on this issue. It's hard for Democrats to believe this about their president, so the only possibility in their minds is that the rest of us are lunatics, and the fact that Republican groups are encouraging unrest in the policital discourse is proof enough for them
But what really gets them pissed is that conservatives and Republicans are finally fighting back, and we're using a page out of the liberal playbook that we've never effectively used before - the protest. They hate having their own tactics used against them more than anything, and that coupled with the fact that most people are not on the side of the president on this issue has them very, very concerned.
So pundits like Juan Williams - who is occasionally fair but incurably liberal - say things like, "The Republican party is imploding," when he really means to say "Democrats are scared shitless that in just 6 months they've wasted all the political capital gained by the anti-Bush media offensive staged during the last 6 years." The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the president, but he won't take it - he's not half the man Bush is.
The truth is the Republican Party is back. We don't need someone to lead us, to think for us, we think for ourselves and are lead by our convictions. That's something liberals don't understand - they are the ones who react emotionally and are whipped to a fervor by media pundits, not us. We dissect information, understand how it applies to us and react accordingly. What the protesters are doing is finally letting the liberal elite know their place. Politicians are not better than the rest of us, and its about time the American people stand up and let Washington and Bama know they work for us! We will never work for him.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
How Democrats Win Elections
Al Franken won by a certified margin of 325 votes over Norm Coleman in 2008. It shouldn't have been close, but Coleman ran a weak campaign and let Franken and the media tell him and the public what was acceptable, labeled him a negative campaigner and let it ride in the press. The fact that Franken's campaign was also predominately negative toward Coleman was never a story. Coleman stopped addressing Franken's lies in TV adds and allowed himself to be swift-boated, and many right-leaning voters turned out for the 3rd party. Coleman's passivity and willingness to yield to the media's broadcast perception of him cost him a landslide reelection victory over one of the least-qualified and angriest human beings to run for office in recent memory. That Franken is consumed by hate and is simply mean-spirited was barely touched on in the campaign, and never by Coleman. Surprise, surprise, among Franken's first official acts as a U.S. senator is to go after the people in Florida Minnesota
The 325 votes is really the point. Remember after election day Coleman had a lead of more than 800 votes. The recount was automatic. Within a week two sets of votes were "discovered", the first in the trunk of a polling staffer's car and the second in a box hidden away behind a cabinet in another polling place. These two stockpiles did not contain one single vote for Coleman, while totaling 350 additional votes for Franken. The staffers who discovered these votes claimed to not know how the votes gor to where they did. I'm sure many of us are driving around town with completed ballots wedged in around the spare tire, and almost no one questioned the authenticity of the ballots. Of course - ballots are cast anonymously, so who would know? At the time Sean Hannity was the only significant national media participant making a fuss, and the counter argument was, and I remember this clearly, that why 350 votes - that was not enough to make up the margin, so of course it wasn't plausible that the votes were fraudulent. And yet in the end, those mystery ballots were just enough to cover Coleman and provide a slight cushion.
Democrat vote manipulation is a tradition as old as the party itself. The fathers of the Democrat Party, Jefferson and Madison, conspired to destroy the reputation of then President John Adams for the express purpose of getting
Al Franken knew he would eventually win. Once the recount gears start, it always finds enough votes for the Democrat, and the reason goes back to
And so it comes as no surprise that Democrats in the State of
So what's the big deal? We tell people all the time who we voted for. Many people advertise it on behalf of their candidate. Why not just get rid of the anonymity requirement and make people stand by their vote - take responsibility for your right!
Either that or watch Democrats continue to steal elections. Their argument is that if you had to identify who you voted for you would be susceptible to intimidation, and then just not vote. Too bad. Apparently you didn't have the conviction to go pull the lever for your candidate, or maybe you were intimidated or manipulated to vote for that person, and if questioned you might have to reveal your little secret. Or maybe you're only voting based on sex, or skin color, and not ideas - wouldn't you look stupid on television when you admitted that, so just stay home. I say those are all excellent reason to make people justify their vote. 97% of blacks voted for Bama. Good, now ask them why. People who have no clue should be disincentivized to vote instead of the opposite.
But of course that wouldn't be any good for Democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)