Miscellaneous Stuff

1.  Barney Frank says, “I think later on there should be tax increases.”  This is the guy who is going to be telling Barry what to do.  Oh, I’m sorry . . . advising Barry on what to do.  If I haven’t been clear enough in the past, let me be clear now.  Barry is not going to lower taxes on anyone.  Ultimately he will raise taxes on everyone who pays taxes so that he can give more handouts to those who do not pay taxes – something like 40% of Americans as it is now.  It is a socialist program that will destroy American.  Think about that come election day.

2. Polls and the enthusiasm gap. It’s like if you want him to win enough, he will win. And the whole voter fraud thing proves they want it a lot.   Despite their wants though, we still have a chance.

3. Larry Flynt of Hustler infamy is producing at Sarah Palin-lookalike porn film. I wonder if I can pick one up on the way to vote for her.

4. Troops support McCain 3 to 1. Well, duh.

5. Manifesto of the Silenced Majority. The majority you rarely hear about in the main stream media and when you do they pull a Joe the Plumber on them.  This is a good read so read it. ***  Really READ THIS!!

Advertisements

30 Comments

  1. Barack Obama’s plan to form a “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military.

    There is the dictator’s secret police. His weapon to take control of the government. Eddie, think about this long and hard. If Bush had tried this, what would you say?

    Why do we need this when we have the standing military and national guard? Anytime you see “security force”, you see trouble.

    Expect raids into your home if you are not one of the chosen followers.

  2. C’mon Rebel …

    Lay off the whiskey and weed …

    Try some Kool-aid !!!

  3. Ah now Eddie, you didn’t answer my questions. What would you have said if Bush had tried these supressionist tactics? Why do we need a civilian security force equiped, trained, as powerful and as funded as our military? Why do we need a civilan security force with military weapons & powers? Is Barry expecting something to happen in the internal US that would require this? Does this not set warning flags in your mind or does it not because you figure you won’t be singled out because you support Barry?

    The military backs McCain 3 to 1. This civilian force will back Barry 100% or they probably won’t be allowed to join. You better think long and hard about this because if it does happen, it will be too late for second thoughts. This does scare the crap out of me.

    You won’t answer my questions will you? Is it because you’re too naive to see the danger? Because you look forward to that type of rule? Instead I’m a boozer & a doper and you only drink kool-aid.

  4. Rebelmoon,

    >>Expect raids into your home if you are not one of the chosen followers.<<

    Please start you meds asap.

    Abilify 5mg
    1 hs

    Dr Chuck

  5. Chuck, aren’t you a pharmacist?

    I think I’ll get any medical advice from a MD, thank you.

  6. It’s interesting that liberals believed and repeatedly claimed that Bush was going to raid people’s homes and drag them off to political prisons, but they can’t seem to even consider that another president . . . perhaps a socialist . . . might do the same thing.

  7. Wait now … Bush started a new security force first … I think he called it Homeland Security. Ask TRO about it. All they did was spy on Americans !!!

  8. Sure ask me. My answer – Ed’s full of shit.

  9. I should add that I have personally read the Patriot Act and know what it actually says instead of just reading the news and thinking I know what it says.

    Also, just as a practical matter . . . the Department of Homeland Security doesn’t have any of the so-called spy agencies under it’s purview. The CIA and NSA are not HSD agencies, and the FBI, the agency responsible for counter-terrorism investigations isn’t either. The law enforcement agencies that do fall under HSD – FPS, USSS, TSA, ICE, FEMA, etc. don’t spy on anyone really and certainly not Americans.

  10. Ok … maybe that’s not fair. Homeland Security resulted in better airport security and port security. But there does seem to be evidence of some exploitation/spying. Or do you think that’s just another trumped up story by the liberal media ?

  11. I’ll bite . . . where is this evidence?

  12. Well she was on the news recently. Oh … I forgot … it probably wasn’t carried by FOX.

    On a previous subject … “whitey”.

    Only 12% of the US Population is black. Barry must be getting support from other areas … that’s if you are right about the 97% of blacks that will vote for him … and I’ll bet you’re right. But he’s gotta have big numbers from these other Ethnical Groups .

  13. Barry is getting tremendous support from whites. Which pretty much disproves that whole “whites won’t vote for a black” deal. Any racism he has to overcome, however, isn’t coming from conservatives or Republicans because they don’t need that excuse to not vote for him. They have a dozen other legitimate reasons to vote for McCain over him.

  14. Here’s ABC’s pillow talk story. You want someone listening to your conversations ?

  15. Yeah, I like it when people listen to me do phone sex.

  16. Well then you wouldn’t mind them recording it and whatever else you talk about. That’s assuming you talk about things other than sex. This is invasion of privacy. You can trivialize it all you want … and I can see that’s exactly what you are doing … and you do it so well when you don’t want to discuss a topic.

  17. Ed, frankly I am tired and don’t feel like arguing with you about it, but I will say two things. One, I buy about 20 percent of anything ABC news “investigators” say, and two, I think you and I and the average US citizen has a greater chance of being hit by lightening than being monitored by the NSA. Actually, being hit by lightening ten times.

    Now, if you want to worry about it, go ahead, but the Patriot Act is one of the best tools we have in fighting international terrorism and there are hundreds of legal protections in place to keep the government from systematically abusing the system. Are there incidents where it is abused? No doubt. But when they are discovered the people doing it – much like in Abu Garib – are punished for what they do.

    Finally, I’m not sure what this has to do with what we were talking about anyway. The NSA was there long before Bush was elected so it has little to nothing to do specifically with him. And even if it did, his administration has simply NOT be the threat to civil rights that the liberals have claimed.

    I guess we will find out how bad Barry is if he is elected.

  18. Um…Ed, you still never did answer Rebelmoon’s questions. Your argument with our host proved to be a very convenient distraction.

  19. I agree the Patriot Act is necessary in a post 911 world. But my point is it’s being abused … plus I thought they had to suspect the buggee of being a terrorist ?

    Anyway … thanks for attempting an explanation.

  20. W A R N I N G … Do NOT read THIS if you are a racist !

    an excerpt follows:

    Is America ready to elect a black president? That’s a more difficult question and one this election may not answer regardless of the outcome. It is true that there is a chilling number of white men and women across the country willing to admit to any pollster who asks that (a) race is an important issue for them and (b) they will under no circumstances cast a ballot for Barack Hussein Obama. Many of those people are democrats, which makes it impossible to predict how things will play out in November.

    Holdouts die hard, history shows. But they do die. Forty years ago many more whites were willing to reveal far uglier views about Martin Luther King and the movement he represented. In 1956, William Faulkner famously boasted he’d be in the street “shooting Negroes” before he’d let the south be integrated.

    It happened anyway.

    Should Obama be elected, another pivotal lesson will be learned: That clever child in Watts or Newark will see that although racism exists, he can succeed in spite of it.

    Therein lies the surprising skepticism among some African Americans vis-a-vis a President Obama. They’ll vote for him, sure, but they are doubtful, even hostile to the notion that his victory could benefit black America in tangible ways. The truth is that it could and it would.

  21. Thanks, Ed, I needed a chuckle before I went off to bed.

    Try this article instead:

    If Barack Obama wins the keys to the White House next month, even nonsupporters will acknowledge the historic significance of his achievement. And America’s. But what might an Obama victory mean for African-Americans in particular? Should we expect his administration to play a major role in black group advancement?

    For more than a century, black civic leaders have tangled over whether to pursue economic independence or focus their energies on integrating political, corporate and educational institutions. W.E.B. Du Bois, author of the groundbreaking 1903 treatise, “The Souls of Black Folk,” argued for the latter, while his contemporary, Booker T. Washington, said “political activity alone” was not the answer. In addition, insisted Washington, “you must have property, industry, skill, economy, intelligence and character.”

    Since the 1960s, the black civil-rights leadership has sided with Du Bois. Between 1970 and 2001, the number of black elected officials in the U.S. grew from fewer than 1,500 to more than 9,000. And while impressive socioeconomic progress has been made, wide black-white gaps remain in educational achievement, homeownership rates, labor-force participation, income levels and other measures.

    Nor should we conclude that civil-rights laws are responsible for the black progress that has occurred. For example, up until the 1950s, and in an era of open and rampant racial discrimination, the jobless rate for blacks was much lower than today and similar to that of whites in the same age group. In fact, blacks had higher labor-force participation rates than whites in every Census taken between 1890 and 1950. And in the decades preceding the 1960s — that is, prior to the passage of landmark civil-rights bills and affirmative-action legislation — there were sharp rises in black educational achievement, both absolutely and relative to whites.

    The economist Thomas Sowell has spent decades researching racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. and abroad. And his findings — in books like “Race and Culture: A World View,” “Affirmative Action Around the World” and “Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?” — show that political activity generally has not been a factor in the rise of groups from poverty to prosperity.

    Many Germans came to the U.S. as indentured servants during colonial times. And while working to pay off the cost of the voyage they studiously avoided participation in politics. Only after they’d risen economically did Germans begin seeking public office, culminating with the election of presidents Hoover and Eisenhower.

    A similar pattern can be found among Chinese populations in southeast Asia, the Caribbean and the U.S. In Argentina, where English minorities have done well financially and played a major role in the development of the economy, they’ve played almost no role in Argentine politics. And so it goes with Italians in the U.S. and Jews in Britain: In both places economic gains have generally preceded political gains. “Empirically, political activity and political success have been neither necessary nor sufficient for economic advancement,” writes Mr. Sowell. “Nor has eager political participation or outstanding success in politics translated into faster group achievement.”

    Black Americans might keep in mind that in those rare instances where the political success of a minority group has come first, it has often resulted in slower socioeconomic progress. The Irish immigrants who came to the U.S. in the mid-19th century hailed from a country where 80% of the population was rural. Yet they settled in industrial centers like New York, Philadelphia and Boston and took low-skill jobs. Their rise from poverty was especially slow — as late as 1920, 80% of all Irish women working in America were domestic servants — despite the fact that Irish-run political organizations dominated many big-city governments.

    “The Irish were fiercely loyal to each other, electing, appointing and promoting their own kind,” writes Mr. Sowell. “This had little effect on the average Irish American, who began to reach economic prosperity in the 20th century at about the same time when the Irish political machines began to decline.”

    If elected, Mr. Obama may well turn out to be a competent president, even an admirable one. But history gives us no indication that his political success will translate into black upward mobility. And given Mr. Obama’s liberal leanings, there’s every reason to believe that current obstacles to black progress will remain in place.

    The candidate favors minimum-wage laws, for example, on the assumption that they help lift people out of poverty. But most poor people already earn more than the minimum wage. And most people who earn the minimum wage aren’t poor. Minimum-wage laws are more likely to price people out of the labor market, especially younger and less educated workers, a large number of whom happen to be black. Today’s economy places a premium on skills. If young people can’t get an entry-level job because an artificial federal wage floor has made them too expensive to hire, they can’t gain the skills and experience to move up the economic ladder.

    To take another example: Mr. Obama opposes educational choice, which will also have a negative impact on poor blacks, who tend to be the ones stuck in America’s worst public schools. Mr. Obama opposes school vouchers that would allow low-income black parents to send their children to the type of private school where he sends his own daughters.

    In both cases, the only “change” that Mr. Obama would be bringing the Oval Office is the color of the person perpetrating bad policies.

    Fact is, if he doesn’t “benefit black America in tangible ways” it won’t be because of racism. It will be because of his socialist policies.

    And with that I will do the end-zone dance to bed because I am really that good.

  22. Response to post #18

    Ah … a breath of fresh air from the other gender … er a one of the other genders. Nevertheless, I’m sure our worldly and educated as well as tasteful host will appreciate your point.

    I did find this article from July … now strange the conservatives have only recently brought up this topic. You gotta read closely to get the full intent of the part of the statement being quoted … of course it has been “spinned” a bit … HERE you go … enjoy !!!

    Kudos to Rebelmoon …
    We’ll have to do more research on The One’s intent.

  23. Response to #21

    I can picture you doing the Pee Wee shuffle … LOL.
    Don’t waste all that energy old man …
    regards to Loving Wife.

  24. How ’bout a little MOOD MUSIC ?

  25. Ok … MOOD MUSIC TAKE 2

  26. Thanks, Ed, for the link to the American Thinker article. Lots of good stuff. I wish the MSM would publish such things, but I guess the kool-aid just too disruptive to the cognitive abilities of the left-leaning journalists.

  27. Oh–I certainly agree that the article gives context to Barry’s statement about the civilian national security force–and pokes holes in Barry’s plan. However, I’ll tweak one of Rebelmoon’s questions to ask this: If the same statement had been made by George W. Bush in 2000 or 2004, or by John McCain or Sarah Palin in 2008, and in the same sort of context, what do you think the MSM would have done with it? Would they have spun it as it has been spun, or would they have provided the context?

    Not that the Republicans would offer such a plan; encourage volunteerism, yes, but not at a $ multi-billion cost of government control of the nation’s volunteer force–of which I am a member, through a faith-based organization that accepts not one dime from any government, but just keeps growing, anyway.

  28. When did MSM convert from objective news reporting the likes of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite to “opinions are us” news starring Keith Olberman ? I can’t believe the number of networks that practice this stuff. Many Americans base their view of reality on what they see on the news with no verification of what they see and hear.

    Our world has changed … no doubt.

    I wish they would stick to the facts.

  29. TRO,

    This has to be a record number of posts on your blog.

  30. Ed (#28) – I’ve often wondered the same about the MSM. And then I’ve wondered whether the likes of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite were really as objective and factual in their reporting as I would like to think. And I would like to think that there was a time in this country when journalists stuck to the facts. But if there was, it ended a long time ago…maybe in the ’70s-??


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s