Saturday, October 06, 2007
Say what? Let's look at how they identify themselves, shall we?
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.(emphasis mine)
Hillary Clinton bragged about helping Media Matters get started. They have done nothing but lie about conservatives from the day they first started up. And now they're trying to say that they're not political?
Lies. Blatant, outright lies.
These are NOT some little fringe element folks. These are the people who are running the agenda for the
Gah. Ah well, it's worth it to have a clean house.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Well, maybe, if you're looking at the political remifications of it. But here's my take on the whole thing - it's well past due. This isn't a housing crash. It's a market correction. And there's a huge difference between those two definitions.
I've watched the housing market soar upwards for years now. I've seen some houses double their market price in a year. A house that went for $80k in Coeur d'Alene when I left is now selling for $250k. Or higher. The price tripled in a decade, in an area that could not support the cost. Sooner or later, the market rebounds and corrects itself, as it is doing now. I have to run, but I'll update this post later.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Witness for example the 41
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That's right, there are 41 Senators who cannot understand what the 1st Amendment says. 41 Senators who are currently trying to force a private citizen off the air.
I'm firmly convinced that 80% of the so-called experts don't know what the hell they're even talking about. They're just justifying their paycheck by expounding and waxing poetic on subjects they don't have a clue about. Remember, if "x" is an unknown quantity, and a "spurt" is a drip of water under pressure, then an "expert" is an unknown drip under pressure.
With politicians, it's about the same. They'll talk and talk, on any subject, as if by speaking they might give the impression that they know what the hell they're talking about. And if you give them a question, or even a simply statement, they'll launch into a half-hour long soliloquy that bores you to tears.
Enter Fred D. Thompson, who had to give one of the best quotes of the year during a speech in Iowa.
After a recent Thompson speech in Iowa a member of the audience called out: "Kill the terrorists, secure the border, and give me back my freedom." Thompson replied "you just summed up my whole speech."That's brilliant, folks. You have no idea how brilliant that was. No hour long discussion, no soliloquy, no expounding, no canned pre-written "Well let me tell you about how my government will do that", just a one-line reply.
Thompson has got the RINO's scared as hell.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
WASHINGTON — A top Democratic congressman, saying Democrats "have had it with being maneuvered and jerked around" on the war in Iraq, offered a new approach Tuesday to change the course of funding for the ongoing war: A war tax.
Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said he will not allow a bill to come for debate to provide emergency supplemental funds for the war and suggested Americans should be compelled to pay for it through a "surtax."
"The president isn't going to get a supplemental this year. I am not going to report a supplemental out" if it simply is a request for funds and not a change in direction for troops in Iraq," Obey said.
Obey suggested he is flexible as to what the change in policy proposes "so long as it represents real change and not camouflage."
Hey, I know how we can fund the war: STOP EARMARKING PORK BARREL PROJECTS, YOU SPINELESS FUCKING SHITHEAD!
Obey said the annual cost for the war — $145 billion — could be paid by a tax that would range from 2 percent for low and middle income folks to 12-15 percent for higher income households.
There's never been a tax that a
"This war is draining the treasury dry. ... There is a huge opportunity cost that is being paid by the same younger generation that is going to be asked to pay the bill because the president is paying for this war on the cuff," Obey said. "If you don't like the cost, then shut down the war."
I have no problem with paying for the war; it's all the government socialist boondoggles, ponzi schemes, corruption and fraud that I have a problem with.
Obey said he has no expectation that the majority leadership in the House would embrace a tax, but wants to try to force the president's hand for this "misbegotten" war. He said that the tax would address the cost of the Iraq war, which he described as "not an intelligent use of resources," and is not related to operations in Afghanistan.
Ah, the "misbegotten" war, the call of defeatocrats, surrender monkeys, cowards, and terrorist-enabling cockgoblins. Iraq is well on it's way to becoming a stable democracy, and the
Yes, I guess it would, seeing as how they're fighting against America's interests both at home and abroad.
They are such a gutless, cowardly group that they make me want to vomit. How on earth did this country ever fall so low as to elect these miserable parasites to Congress?
Monday, October 01, 2007
A family court judge overstepped her authority by ordering a drug-addicted homeless couple to have no more children, a state appeals court ruled Friday in overturning the ban.
Judge Marilyn O’Connor banned Stephanie Pendleton and Rodney Evers in 2004 from having more children until they could get back the four children they lost to foster care, three of whom tested positive for cocaine at birth.
Pendleton, now 38, challenged the ruling.
“We conclude that the court had no authority to prohibit (Pendleton) from procreating,” a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court wrote.
Yes, a normal person has the right to procreate. But I do not agree that you have that right if it damages the children and causes the rest of the country to take up the burden of raising your kids.I might get flamed for this, but I've seen too many drug addicts popping out kids as fast as they possibly can, all of whom become wards of the state and have some major health issues because of the drugs the "mothers" were using while they were pregnant.
I mean, let's toss the fact that these drug-addicted shitheads are costing US taxpayers flaming assloads of money by forcing other people to raise their kids; let's look at the effect on the kids themselves. They were born ADDICTED TO CRACK! All the development that normally takes place in the womb either cannot or will not happen because the mother WAS USING CRACK WHEN SHE WAS PREGNANT! They are irreparably damaging these kids before the kids are even born!
Do any of us have the right to force someone to do crack? No? Then what gives the mother the right to do so? We're not talking about a glass of wine, we're talking about crack cocaine here, something that will damage this kid for the rest of his life. And since they're homeless crack addicts, the cost of taking care of those kids is born by society.
That's not right. And to be perfectly honest, I have no problem telling a couple of crack addicts that they can't have ANYMORE KIDS ADDICTED TO CRACK!
Yes, I know this could become a slippery slope. But there is a fine line between what's good for an individual and what's good for the country. We tread on that line every day. Speed limits? Who sets speed limits? Is that not the same thing in a different form? I can safely drive at high speeds, so why shouldn't I be able to do so? There's no adoption agency in the world that would let me adopt if I went in and said "Oh, by the way, I'm a crack addict and I plan on getting these kids hooked on crack as soon as possible." People understand that this is not a good thing. And yet we are just supposed to allow two homeless crack addicts, who have no intention of getting off crack, to have yet ANOTHER child who's addicted to crack?
Nope. Here is one situation where I have no problem with those two being forcibly sterilized.
Now let the flaming begin.
By the way: There's a commenter at Rachel's place who had this to say:
That being said:If we put the drug addicts who are breaking the law in PRISON for their CRIMES, then this whole problem goes away! Poof! Like magic or somethin’.
If we put them in prison it would certainly prevent them from having any more drug-addicted kids. But just how long would they stay in jail, hmmmmmm?
There are too many problems involved in this one case to solve with one solution. But until we as a country are ready and willing to deal with the harsh realities of drug addicts, the cultures that create them and the way we deal with them, preventing them from reproducing is the only thing we can do.
Yeah, I know, that's going into black-helicopters-are-coming-for-me land, but what the hell.
I've heard the audio. I've watched the video. There was no smear. Period. Despite what the whores at Media Matters say, Rush Limbaugh did not smear the military.
And yes, let's be up front about Media Matters, shall we? A George Soros financed "media" group who's sole focus is the demonization and intimidation of conservative figures cannot be trusted to be fair, balanced, or non-partisan. In fact the reason I call them whores is because they are exactly that - they get paid to do what the Left wants them to do.
So now anyways, there's supposedly a resolution being advanced in Congress by the
Uh-huh. Let's see here, I need to check a few things.
In 2004, the
Dingy Harry Reid states that "the surge has failed" when they Surge wasn't even completed yet. Chuck the Schmuch Schumer claiming that our troops didn't have any part in the reduction of violence in Anbar Province. Kerry stating that if you don't do well in school you get stuck in Iraq. Charlie Rangel stating that the military is made up of poor, stupid kids who couldn't get a real job.
After all of this, I'm supposed to believe that anyone from the
Yeah, right. I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night. So here's my response to the
I'm simply waiting for the time when I fulfill my oath to protect that Constitution from all enemies, foreign or DOMESTIC.
Does anyone know what a leather collar means in the BDSM community? Hmmmmm? Anyone been involved in that?
It means you're a sexual slave. As in, an extreme submissive who will do whatever their master asks. This is NOT something you want to dress a two-year old child in. Unless you're trying to say that your two year old daughter is a sexual slave. Which the very thought of makes me want to vomit.
You know, far be it for me to pass judgement on what adults do in their own house. But to dress kids up in BDSM gear and walk around a fetish fair?
No. That is wrong, plain and simple.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
"What kind of person would perpetrate that sort of fraud, and in service to what ideals?"
Found at Eternity Road. You can tell when election season is coming; the Left's tenuous connection with facts and the truth get completely severed.