Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
"Are you calling Democrats Nazis?!?"
"Well it depends on what you mean by 'parsing', 'devalued', 'twisted', 'dumbed', 'reduced', 'forcing', 'insolvent', 'created', 'opportunity', 'need', 'change', 'centralised', 'redistributionization', 'national socialist German workers party'..."
Friday, December 19, 2008
Salvation Army Told to Stop Rattling Collection Tins... It Might Offend Other Religions
After 130 years of raising money at Christmas time, the Salvation Army is now telling members to quit rattling their collection tins.It may offend other religions.
The Daily Mail reported:
For 130 years they have been part of Christmas, filling the air in towns across the land with music and carols. But one thing is missing from the repertoire of Salvation Army bands this year - the percussion of rattling tins. Members have been forbidden to shake their charity tins - even if it's done in time to the music - in case it harasses or intimidates people. One said she had been told it might also offend other religions.
Apparently it's offensive to some religions to be FORCED to hear the rattling of charity tins...
... and yet... it's NOT offensive to find Muslim Prayer Rooms in a mall? What's next... a mosque? And as one commenter mentioned HERE... how long before they stop serving pork at the food court to appease Muslims.
What about our public schools?
I find it offensive that one religion is getting more "privileges" than others to somehow avoid offending anyone from that religion. And yet I don't see any special places for children from other religions. The usual argument against this is that other religions don't have rituals that are performed in the middle of the day or need to be in private. So? You can't say you're being fair to all religions if you single one out and give them their own rooms and excuses to leave classrooms or take time out of their own education to go off and conduct religious practices. I seriously doubt that if I call my son's school and tell them he needs to leave the room at exactly 11:13am to pray that they will provide for it. Now, granted... he doesn't NEED to do that, so they could easily win the argument that he doesn't need to do such a thing.
The fact is... people are embarassed. They say that any child can pray over their lunch if they want, yet those who witness such an act feel uncomfortable and uneasy when they see it. I hear educators say that any child can conduct whatever type of prayer they need... they won't stop them. Really? I doubt that because if one of the teachers doesn't agree with what the child is doing, he or she will find a way... ANY WAY... to interupt that child and distract him from his prayer.
One school of thought (pardon the pun) is that by building these special rooms, they are protecting the individual (Muslims) from ridicul and helping those who are uncomfortable watching such religious practices (non-Muslims) not be offended. Well, that's just dandy. Let's see how many religions we can name that DO require the same type of seclusion and/or time to worship whatever god they worship. It isn't ONLY Muslims.
Either religion is or it is not allowed in our schools... you can't say it's okay for Muslims but not Catholics or Jews or Mormons or Budist or... sigh... you do it for all or you do it for none.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
How soon before Obama destroys our progress in Iraq and when will the Left admit to the worst congress ever?
Either way, he's going to piss a lot of people off! Imagine the outrage of those who have struggled for so long and the families of dead soldiers if we pull out too soon and have to start all over again. Imagine the outrage from the liberal left when Obama says we must continue doing what we're going now and not withdraw until some "unknown" date. Of course, they'll stand behind his decision... even if it's the exact decision President Bush has made or would make. Hypocrisy is a nasty, filthy word.
Milestone in Baghdad
The barbarism in Mumbai and the economic crisis at home have largely overshadowed an otherwise singular event: the ratification of military and strategic cooperation agreements between Iraq and the United States.
For the United States, this represents the single most important geopolitical advance in the region since Henry Kissinger turned Egypt from a Soviet client into an American ally. If we don't blow it with too hasty a withdrawal from Iraq, we will have turned a chronically destabilizing enemy state at the epicenter of the Arab Middle East into an ally.
True, the war is not over. As Gen. David Petraeus repeatedly insists, our (belated) successes in Iraq are still fragile. There has already been an uptick in terror bombings, which will undoubtedly continue as what's left of al-Qaeda, the Sadrist militias and the Iranian-controlled "special groups" try to disrupt January's provincial elections.
This is a cute little photo analyst of the WORST CONGRESS EVER.
$165 Billion: Budget deficit, fiscal 2007
$1000 Billion: Budget deficit, fiscal 2009 (estimated)
4.5%: Unemployment rate: November 2006
6.7%: Unemployment rate: Today.
$50 Trillion: Net worth of the United States, November 2006
$44 Trillion: Net worth of the United States: Today.
12,157: Dow, November 2006
8,600: Dow, Today.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Let's talk about the concept of restricting children from being children. Teachers want little boys to act like little girls and little girls to act like little boys. No wonder we have so much gender confusion. Boys must "understand what it must be like to suffer as a woman"... and little girls must take up arms against boys to prove their masculinity. It's up to the parents to teach their boys to be respectful of girls... and to teach their girls to be strong without feeling animosity towards boys. It's a bizarre line we tend to step over and it makes no sense to me why we can't teach both men and women to be independent and not let anyone else break them down into piles of waste. You don't have to experience tremendous neglect to be a bigger person. You don't have to HATE in order to be better than you are now. You don't have to turn your back on others just to prove a point.
In all aspects, our education system tries to tear the family unit apart by either making children disrespect their parents or making boys and girls hate each other based on their natural and inevitable development. In the mean time, it back fires. I've seen and heard the garbage coming from teen aged boy's mouths... absolute disrespect for women and all they want to do is subject them to the humiliations they feel will make them into men. I've also seen and heard the garbage coming from teen aged girl's mouths... the desire to make every boy want them so bad that the male brain explodes. It's a continual circle of disrespect and shoulders shrug to say "that's the way it has always been and that's the way it will always be... eventually they will grow up to LEARN respect for each other". No... not always.
Its' a constant battle between male and female and the family unit is to blame often for not teaching their kids how to respect other people. But ultimately, even when parents do teach their children how to behave and how to care for others, the education system tears it down by finding suggestive ways to encourage the ongoing struggle between the sexes, the races, the religions, the family members, the classes... it is an unbelievable undercutting of humanity.
All of this can only lead to not only the family unit falling apart, but our country falling into socialism by causing individuals to be nothing more than one voice against a mass of voices owned and controlled by the government. The more time goes by, the more the true intentions of liberals and democrats come to light. At one point I would not have made such a wide general statement and perhaps I shouldn't do so now. But just like the fall of journalist and the revelation across the country that they are owned by liberals and democrats, so shall these same liberals and democrats show their true faces. Eventually those who were once proud to say they fell into that category will turn their backs on the extremists and either form their own group or cross the isle to become republicans and/or conservatives.
It isn't a matter of being liberal or democrat or conservative or republican... it's a matter of being an American with values that reach to the sky not fester in the gutter.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Who cares what Oprah thinks, right? Problem is... MANY people DO care what she thinks.
There may come a day when Sarah Palin wants to have an interview with Oprah but I have a feeling when that day comes, it will be on Sarah's terms.
Oprah was hypocritical during the campaign for the white house claiming she didn't want to have any political bias by having a candidate on her show. Let's see... how many times did she have Obama on her show BEFORE the campaign began? How many times did she feel compelled to have Palin on her show?
Remember this statement by Oprah? Remember the amount of comments under this statement by her viewers who were very upset that she didn't have Sarah on her show yet had Barrack on her show?
“The item in today’s Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over.” – Oprah Winfrey, September 5, 2008
And what about this?
Oprah Winfrey Hits Campaign Trail for Obama
“When you listen to Barack Obama, when you really hear him, you witness a very rare thing. You witness a politician who has an ear for eloquence and a tongue dipped in the unvarnished truth.”
Seems Oprah was endorsing Barrack Obama way back in December of 2007. Her statement above does clearly show that she said she was in support of Obama and that she didn't want to make her show a platform for any candidate. That is what she said and that is what she did. The problem with this statement is that she had Barrack on her show a few times already so keeping Sarah Palin OFF her show was a way of letting Barrack use her show as a platform. She was not "fair" in her approach to the candidates. If nothing else, she could have had them both on her show on separate dates and asked them the same general questions making this statement of hers a little more believable.
Now Oprah is finally using her show as a platform for our new President, Barrack Obama.
Oprah 'Unleashed' After Her Candidate's Win
"During this long campaign, I made a vow at the beginning I would not use my show as a platform, and I kept my mouth shut and supported Barack Obama as a private citizen," she told her audience during a live taping of the show Wednesday morning. "Today, though, the election is over and I'm unleashed."
The problem with all of this is that by her outrageous endorsement of Obama and the fact she had him on her show and did NOT have Palin on her show, she very much endorsed him with her show. She claims that she was endorsing him PRIVATELY. Sorry Oprah... once you're famous, your private life doesn't really stay private.
Oprah Calls Obama "The One"
Winfrey said, "For the very first time in my life, I feel compelled to stand up and to speak out for the man who I believe has a new vision for America," and told the audience of 15,000 said, "I am here to tell you, Iowa, he is the one. He is the one!"
If this isn't an over the top endorsement, I don't know what is. Now, it wasn't said on her show, that is true... but people aren't stupid. They can see that Oprah was star struck over Obama and would do anything to help him get elected... even if that meant keeping Sarah off her show.
Some might think that comparing having Sarah (a V.P. candidate) to Barrack (a Pres. candidate) on Oprah's show is like comparing apples to oranges. That may be true but in light of Oprah's desire to see women in higher political offices, etc. it seems that having Barrack on her show (our first black presidential candidate) and having Sarah on her show (the first female v.p. candidate in a quite a long while) would definitely constitute "covering all her bases" when it comes to bringing on important people in our political world. Clearly it didn't matter that Sarah was a woman or that if she were V.P. it would be a great statement for the advancement of women in politics. This clearly didn't matter enough for Oprah to at least interview Sarah. Now that Sarah has lost, Oprah wants her on her show with all the bells and whistles to go along with it.
And isn't this interesting...
Hmmm... do you think Oprah left the show because Wright is a racist or because she may lose her loyal viewers if they found out that Oprah agrees with Wright. It's just another one of those questions left unanswered.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright has become a household name due to his association with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. However, Obama's not the only famous figure to attend Wright's church. Oprah was a member of Trinity church, where Wright preached, from 1984-1986, and she continued to attend off and on through the early 1990s. Then she stopped, and as Newsweek reports in its latest issue, Wright himself was a major reason.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Secretary Colin L. Powell
February 14, 2002
QUESTION: I'm wondering, when I talk to my friends about the U.S., we think about how do you feel about representing a country commonly perceived as the Satan of contemporary politics?
SECRETARY POWELL: Seen as what?
QUESTION: As the Satan of contemporary politics.
POWELL: Satan? Oh. Well, I reject the characterization. Quite the contrary. I think the American people, the United States of America, presents a value system to the rest of the world that is based on democracy, based on economic freedom, based on the individual rights of men and women. That is what has fueled this country of ours for the last 225 years.
I think that's what makes us such as draw for nations around the world. People come to the United States. They come to be educated. They come to become Americans. We are a country of countries, and we touch every country, and every country in the world touches us.
So, far from being the Great Satan, I would say that we are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women from the armed forces of the United States to other parts of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression. We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism. We saved Europe in World War I and World War II. We were willing to do it, glad to do it. We went to Korea. We went to Vietnam. All in the interest of preserving the rights of people.
And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say" "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are. So, far from being the Satan, I think we are the protector of a universal value system that more and more people are recognizing as the correct value system: democracy, economic freedom, the individual rights of men and women to pursue their own destiny. That's what we stand for, and that's what we try to help other countries achieve as well.
This is a great response to an insane accusation. How can we be considered the Satan of contemporary politics... and what the hell are contemporary politics anyway? If anyone is in league with Satan, the terrorist organizations trying to kill innocent people across the world are the ones to wear this label.
In one of his last sermons before his death, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini warned of "three threats" to his vision of Islam: the US, the Jews and women.
Two decades later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thinks he has the United States and the Jews in hand - and is moving on the third "enemy."
Women were the first to demonstrate against Khomeini's regime with a mass rally in Tehran on March 8, 1979 - less than a month after the mullahs had seized power. Over the next decade, the authorities imprisoned hundreds of thousands of women for varying lengths of time, and executed thousands.
But women continued to fight a regime that deemed them subhuman. Their resistance prevented the mullahs from abrogating pre-revolutionary laws limiting gender discrimination. Thus, women succeeded in keeping their right to vote and win public office.
That sounds like something Satan would want. Satan would be the one to approve of this type of behavior. Khomeini is the one who states it is "his vision" and Ahmadinejad believes in this vision and has moved on to "dealing" with women. Women, as the article states, are deemed subhuman. Anyone or any group who feels it is their right to treat another person as subhuman is not them self human.
In this country, every legal American citizen has the same rights as every other. No where in our laws does it state that we can treat one person from another in a different light. And, as a matter of fact, this slides over into how we treat people who are not American citizens. If that were not true, we would not come to the aide of so many who ask for it.The fact many people from other countries (lets look towards Europe) feel some sort of evil intention towards America only shows how self righteous they are... why... because many of them would not defend their country and do anything they could to keep it the way it is. They are self serving, self righteous, jealous individuals who point their fingers outwards to avoid eye contact that will reveal them for what they are.
I'm truly sorry if there are people from these same countries who do not fall into this category because they are put there just out of association. But as is true here in America... often the loudest most obnoxious people are the ones that DO NOT speak for all of us and therefore we are all lumped into some horrible ball of garbage. I've noticed lately that those who are the loudest in other countries feel the same as the loudest from America... thus it looks like the WHOLE WORLD feels one way. Really? I don't think so.
What we have happening is a group of loud mouths who think they speak for everyone when in reality they don't speak for anyone but their own self interests. If they had their way, everyone would live exactly the way they felt was right and, in my book, that's a dictatorship. Communism is not my way of life.
Monday, December 8, 2008
President Ronald Reagan gives a thumbs-up to supporters at the Century Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles as he celebrates his re-election, Nov. 6, 1984, with first lady Nancy Reagan at his side. Reagan's win over Walter Mondale, 525 to 13 in the electoral vote and 59 percent to 41 percent in popular votes, was unquestionably a landslide election.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
How many people think America is a Democracy? It's amazing to me but not surprising. I didn't graduate from High School knowing much of anything about how our government and how our country works. I just sighed and rolled my eyes when we had to discuss things like that. I don't even know if the teacher was telling me what I needed to know or filling my head with mush. I just didn't pay that much attention.
America is not a Democracy... we are a Republic.
There are few people who really care about what's going on with our government, especially those coming out of High School. Oh, there are those graduating who know far more than I do, but the majority of them just want to graduate so they can get on with their lives. So many Americans don't understand why they SHOULD care about how our government is changing.
As Zo says here... freedom of speech is more about being able to speak out against our government if they become or may become oppressive without the fear of being put in jail or silenced to death. So many Americans think freedom of speech is the ability to just say whatever you want, no matter how shocking (and the more shocking the better) to anyone who will listen. That isn't what it's all about.
The subject of gun control is a sensitive subject indeed. Democrats want to ban them... take them out of the hands of American citizens because guns are dangerous. Guns can and sometimes do have a part in criminal activities... but taking them away from citizens will not make that fact any less than it is now.
If they make owning a handgun or any other gun illegal, it will inevitably make it EASIER for criminals to get their hands on guns. It makes no difference if you can buy them at the local gun store or in a back alley. Making a person register their gun has no affect on criminals. When was the last time a criminal went in to a store, registered for a gun, sat back during the waiting process to actually buy the gun and then went out to rob a bank?
They don't go to the store... they go to the alley.
Making guns illegal will change nothing for criminals... instead there will be more guns made available to them illegally because those selling them will have a lot more on hand.
Banning guns causes law abiding citizens to become criminals merely because they want to protect themselves against the "real" bad guys. Not criminals in that they commit horrible crimes, but instead criminals in the eyes of those who ban guns and cause people to use the same sources criminals use to purchase them.
I agree with Zo in that a person should get the proper training when it comes to shooting a gun and thus, owning one. I also agree that the government has no business knowing whether I own one gun or twenty. So long as I am knowledgeable in the use of them, then how many I have is my business and no one else's.
I love the mention of trees in this video... liberals continue to tell us that America is a horrible country because we harm the environment. They forget to mention that we are the leading country when it comes to taking care of the environment. We don't chop down trees and build without consideration of the environment and future generations of Americans. We replant trees in areas where they are cut down... we harvest what is needed and we continue this process generation after generation.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
This year's election has brought to light what so many of us have known for a long time. Journalism is dead.
TRUE journalism is dead.
The exact hour when the cancer took hold and began it's twisted erosion of our media is unclear but it wasn't too long ago that it began to fester.
I remember singing along to Dirty Laundry several years ago and the lyrics were more true than I imagined at that time. Today, the lyrics tell a haunting story of "told ya so".
"Dirty little secrets Dirty little lies We got our dirty little fingers in everybody's pie We love to cut you down to size"
When journalists and those who pay them to come up with wonderfully outlandish articles go out of their way to get as much dirt as they can from those individuals who really aren't bad people, it shows their lack of integrity. When they go out of their way to paint pretty little flowers around the feet of terrorists, it shows their lack of intelligence.
If those in charge of what journalists can and can not report dictate to them that if they do not bring them dirt on those who are not dirty and clean up those who are filthy, they are themselves guilty of creating monsters in the real world.
Journalists have sadly sunken to the level of lawyers... we all know the jokes about lawyers and how underhanded they are. And we all know it isn't true of all lawyers... somewhere along the line they got a reputation and all were placed in a stereo-type they may never outlive. Thing is... this year's election has placed the lawyer above the journalist.
Congratulations to those journalists who sunk so low that other "good" journalists must hang their heads in shame and feel embarrassed to speak their own profession.
They hung themselves by their own hypocritical words.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
I always thought free-thinkers like that were liberals. I didn't necessarily think that was a bad thing but never really thought much about it either. Although I never spent much time thinking about it, I felt it was their right to feel whatever they wanted. Now many of those same individuals have spent a great deal of their lives making their children feel the same way... "live and let live".
Sounds wonderful to me. As a matter of fact, I have taught my son that he can be anything he wants and that so long as he gets there honestly, I will always be proud of his achievements. He also knows how to be tolerant of others... but not because I forced it down his throat (not like so many liberals do today). The tolerance he learned was a simple lesson in how to win and lose without making everyone around you feel horrible. You don't spend your time whining and crying when you lose... you don't accuse others of cheating or playing an unfair game just because you lost. You don't spend your time rubbing someone else's face in the dirt if you win... you don't destroy their self worth by pointing at them and laughing.
That's it... to me that lesson teaches all the tolerance a person really needs. If you know how to win and how to lose, you will have accomplished something so many others have not. You will feel joy for those who have done something great even if you have not and you will still feel pride in yourself when you accomplish something and not make everyone around you feel miserable.
... but back to the "live and let live" individuals. It has taken me a long time to realize that many of them have hidden motives behind this freedom of thought ideal. I always thought they included everyone in that motto. Unfortunately, many of them have now moved on into political footholds in our society... politicians, journalists, educators... so many of them have slipped into these once inspiring and proud rolls of our society.
And some of them are frauds... they either didn't participate in the "live and let live" movement or they just went along for the ride seeing a much bigger way of using the motto for a different agenda.
Now we have the "live and let live so long as it's the right way" groups and individuals. They want freedoms but primarily for those people who, in their eyes, deserve certain freedoms. They want these freedoms GRANTED to those who follow the special rules they have created. They want freedoms withheld from anyone who disagrees with them and has the audacity to speak up and say something about it. They want all of us to do exactly what they want us to do so they can claim victory over an invisible foe that only they can see.
All the while, they forget that other countries and groups with their own hidden agenda are watching them and amusing themselves of the ignorance that they are enforcing. Not only do they hope everyone will run around with these ideals, they want to then take them and crush them into non-existence. Do you think Islam really loves the fact Obama is in power? Do you think they agree with any of his personal or political points of view? No... what they believe in is the fact that if they can get a very liberal president into power, then they can eventually control him or control the society he creates while in office. It could be they take full advantage next year or they could be patient and wait to see if he gets elected to a second term.
RADARSITE's: That Other War: Revisited
What have we learned about ourselves from this recent fateful presidential election? We learned that a majority of Americans have bought into the concept that America is the problem with the world. We have learned that if we attempt to protect ourselves or fight back against our enemies we will be condemned by the world as aggressors. We have learned that it is our inherent bigotry and racism that is the fundamental cause of the dangerous instability in this world. We have learned that the only way to combat this growing menace to world peace is to 'embrace the other' and elect a man of color -- regardless of his qualifications or character -- in order to make a statement to the world that we recognize our national historical guilt and that we are willing, no, determined, to change. To accomodate the world, we will change what it means to be an American. We will be less concerned with our American exceptionalism and more concerned with the needs of the world we live in. We have been guilty of gross arrogance and monumental hubris, and we are willing to make amends.
We have also learned that, for the majority of Americans, the fact that our enemies have not broken down our doors and attacked us in our homes for seven years now proves that they are no longer there. Or if they are there, that they no longer pose the threat to our existence that we once thought they did. 49% of Americans polled during this past election thought that the most serious issue facing this nation was the economy. The next most pertinent issue was terrorism, which was ranked at an inconsequential 9%. Now, the question is this. Does the existential threat to our nation diminish in direct relation to our acknowledgement of it? Have our sworn enemies become less dangerous to us because we refuse to look at them?
They know that a liberal society is much easier to defeat than a conservative society... conservatives will stand up for the rights of liberals while liberals will simply let conservatives drown.
But the terrorists WILL attack. It could be they attack us the same way they did on September 11, 2001 (there have been no successful attacks since then) or they could just continue to attack us through our youth by spending years indoctrinating our children while they are in grade school all the way up to our young adults in American colleges who show intolerance and hatred for others who do not agree with them.
"Why do you call me a racist when you don't even know me?" she screamed. Made no difference. Grossmann was felled by the largest of the four. She hit her head on the brick wall, and staggered back to her dorm. The other three black women at the beating chucked at this dark manifestation of partisan evil. They walked away laughing, offering no help to their victim. The banality of evil had asserted itself. And at four-to-one, it was also a cowardly act of mindless violence which, presumably, the four thought "normal."Although I have taught my son tolerance indirectly through how to win and how to lose... I feel that tolerance as our society teaches us is a joke. So many liberals preach tolerance of others who are different and yet they do nothing when students in our colleges are singled out and beaten for being conservative. It's a joke! It has nothing to do with tolerance and "live and let live". It has everything to do with dictatorship.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Please note... post full of sarcasm... just a little fun.
I did not roll the highest number and was forced to go last out of the starting gate. I rolled a 5 and Arc rolled a 6... but he was sitting to my left and even though I had the 2nd highest roll, I had to go last. This is the first "unfair" part of the game.
Due to the fact Arc rolled the highest number, he was able to accumulate properties right off the bat and was getting the upper hand. I was "unlucky" in my rolls as I did not land on any properties to purchase until my second time around the board... this also was "unfair".
Our son J began making some shady deals with Arc, thus giving him an early Monopoly with the two properties with the highest rent... again... unfair. I finally got a Monopoly after a little wheeling and dealing with J but ended up with the LOWEST rented properties on the board... again... unfair. What was even more unfair was that only twice did anyone land on those squares and at one point, I was in jail so could not collect. Sigh...
Eventually, our son T lost almost all of his money and was homeless with several mortgaged properties. At one point he started making a come-back and even unmortgaged his properties. This did not last long as Arc had accumulated enough money to put cities on his properties. Unfortunately, T landed on one of those and went completely bankrupt, forcing him out of the game. I too had cities on my properties, but since no one was landing there, it really didn't matter... plus, my poor business practices of accumulating these stupid properties really wasn't a consideration... right?
No amount of convincing would get Arc to trade with me so that I could obtain another Monopoly even though he clearly had the best on the board and could afford to give up just "one" card. This was highly unfair... how on earth was I to be able to compete if all options were blocked?
Eventually, J landed on Arc's properties (about 3 times) and ended up going bankrupt. He did come back from the brink a couple of times and even got his properties back... but alas "the man" stuck it to him and he had to leave the game.
I landed on his properties a couple of times myself but had accumulated quite a bit of money even though the game was so clearly unfair and stacked against me. All during the game we were hoping he would go to jail or have to pay higher taxes or have some other catastrophe happen... but alas his luck did not run out.
Mine, on the other hand, did... although I had accumulated quite a bit by then, I knew that landing on one of his several properties would do me in. Still, he would not trade with me or make any kind of deal... he merely waited for me to fail and hope he could benefit from my crisis. Alas, I landed and went into a great tailspin to my end.
The moral... never play against greedy players.
All kidding aside... we had a great deal of fun playing. This was a lesson in economics and personal beliefs for me. Truly, those of us not doing so well felt that the rich player "had it coming to him" when something bad happened, while those not so rich were ignored and it was okay when they succeeded... but just a little bit. If they began to gain too much, suddenly they were a threat.
Both Arc and J had an interest in gaining great wealth and destroying their opponents. Because of this, it seemed only fair when bad things happened to them. In reality, they were the better negotiators and did a better job of utilizing their wealth to create more wealth. They landed on the same tax squares and pulled the same cards that caused them to put more money into the kitty. But when you're a player who is drowning, you want all the bad stuff to happen to the player who is not.
So... is this what liberals feel? Do they feel that since a person is wealthy and accumulating money that they must have bad things happen to them in order to make it fair for those who are not doing so well? I've read things and heard things and have seen how they delight in the failure of anyone who is just "too wealthy" and "too successful" compared to the guy sitting on his couch watching Jay Leno and reruns of the Flintstones. Clearly sitting on your butt qualifies as trying your best... right?
What rich liberals want is for "other" rich people to give a majority of their fortune to those who are not rich... but specifically anyone who is poor and agrees with liberals. No... I really DO mean that. It doesn't benefit liberals to give handouts to those who don't agree with them. You can almost visualize them trying to convince these desperate individuals with a little cash, a wink and a nod.
Another question... how many very rich liberals give significant amounts of money to charities? I'm sure there are some... just as there are rich conservatives who give. But I can tell you one liberal who does not... our new vice president.
- 11/20/2008 ~gas where I live @ $1.97 today~
- 11/18/2008 ~gas where I live @ $1.99 today~
This chart represents the average retail price of gas where I live during the last 6 months (today is 11/20/08). As you can see, the prices began to fall slowly around August 5th (give or take) and then took a sharp decline around October 7th.
This chart represents the average retail price of gas where I live during the last 36 months (or 3 years). As you can see there was a bit of rollercoaster riding going on with a steady and significant increase February 07 to June 07 and then a dramatic increase February 08 to July 08. Gas around here is usually higher in the spring/summer months but the increase during 2008 was significant as we went from about $2.89 to $4.13 in five months.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
I have not researched the accuracy of this article, but found it quite interesting. At a later date, I will do a little research to see if I can find the entire transcript of Mr. Clinton's speach on 11/12/01. If anyone else finds it, please let me know in the comments. ~thanks~
Clinton: America’s Sins Caused 9/11
By Sam Francis
There are many good consequences of Bill Clinton no longer being president, but not the least is that at last we can find out what he really thinks. As long as Mr. Clinton was in the White House, getting the truth out of him was like looking for intelligent life on Mars. But last week, after a year of rest and relaxation, the ex-president revealed to a breathless world exactly why America was attacked by terrorists on Sept. 11.
The reason is that it’s all our fault. For hundreds of years we mistreated the Indians, owned slaves and even committed crusading, with the result that the Sept. 11 attacks are the butcher’s bill for our long record of crime and terrorism.
Speaking before an audience of about 1,000 students at Georgetown University, the former president unbosomed an astonishing range of ignorance about various historical events and even more flawed thinking about what the events mean and what they have to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.
“Here in the United States,” he disclosed, “we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed even though they were innocent.” “This country once looked the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human.... And we are still paying a price today” for those sins.
Such scholarship already. Mr. Clinton is indeed right that the United States practiced slavery from its beginnings and that some slaves were killed. So did most other societies, European and not, for a lot longer than the United States. We also nabbed Indian land. So did the British, the French, and the Spanish, not to speak of Indians themselves. All that’s true, and you can learn about it, not by attending universities, but simply by watching TV reruns and old movies. Why Arab terrorists should attack us for those deeds today is another question, of course.
As for the morality of it, that’s another story, but if indeed these events were things we should not only be ashamed of but even punished for, as Mr. Clinton implied, then the entire American national experience is illegitimate. Without slavery and the expropriation of the Indians, there would be no America at all, and if you can’t live with the one, you’re not going to be comfortable with the other.
But it’s not just America and its past with which Mr. Clinton is itchy, but the entire record of Western civilization, reaching as far back as the Crusades. “In the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was a Muslim on the Temple Mount. I can tell you that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it.”
Various questions immediately arise. What exactly are “we”—presumably modern Americans—supposed to do about it, since the Crusaders have been dead for about a thousand years? And what could it possibly have to do with contemporary terrorism? Why don’t Jews commit terrorism against us if they’re still talking about it in the Middle East? Why do Middle Easterners commit terrorism against Americans, who weren’t even around during the First Crusade, which took place in 1096?
Ever since Sept. 11 there have been various reasons offered as to why the terrorists attacked us, many of them simply cant constructed to make us look good (they attacked us because we’re a “democracy” or because we practice tolerance and let women go to school) or to avoid blaming U.S. support for Israel lest some people think we should stop doing so. But even these phony rationales attributed to the terrorists argue that we were attacked because of our virtues, and some critics of U.S. foreign policy (such as your servant) believe we were attacked because of our foreign policy in the Middle East generally. But as far as I know, no one has suggested that we had it coming all along—until now.
What Mr. Clinton is telling us is that the West itself, as well as the United States, are so wrapped up in terror themselves that they not only deserve to be attacked by terrorism but also that they are simply not legitimate political and cultural orders—that the West and the United States are inherently criminal and terrorist systems. That, of course, is a profoundly anti-American and anti-Western view, as well as being without historical or ethical merit. But what’s good about Mr. Clinton’s speech is that, after lying to us consistently as president for eight years, he has at last told us what he really thinks.
COPYRIGHT 2001 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Written Novebmer 12, 2001
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Tasteless Halloween Costumes of 2008
You laughed, didn't you... and I do mean you must have laughed really, really hard cause death is just so funny...
Granted, this is not headline news and it's just a way for this couple to get attention and get their "one day of fame" in the blog world.
"This guy and girl dressed up as one of the twin towers and a plane for Halloween, when the girl was asked if she thought she would offend anyone she replied, “No, it’s cool, my aunt died on the 64th floor, and it was a conspiracy anyway.” Are you kidding me? I’m all for grossly offensive jokes but not when it’s taken THAT far."The comments under this picture on the site called The Dirty were angry about this costume... not so much offended for themselves but angry for those who died during the terrorist attack. This site has some, shall we say, questionable photos and people are not offended by much... but this was different.
Question: How is it that since this woman knows someone who died and she thinks it was a conspiracy it's okay to joke about those who died?
Another Question: Would she dress up to look like her aunt's killer if she were killed during a home invasion? What if her aunt was run over by a train... would she dress up like a train?
This isn't a way of honoring someone you love... it's a way of mocking their death and saying you don't really give a damn.
Seems to me (and several others) she's just another inconsiderate person who hasn't dealt with the truth of the matter... terrorists killed her aunt and if she cared for the woman at all, she would not have dressed up in such a manner.
There are a lot of things people joke about that are really inappropriate but we pooh-pooh them and shrug our shoulders and sometimes even giggle a little. But I don't see anything humorous about death... I'm not going to laugh at jokes about 911. I'm not going to laugh about the things Hitler did. I'm not going to laugh about thousands of people dying in an earthquake. Death is not funny and if you think it is... truly, get yourself to the hospital and get a lobotomy.
No matter who you happen to think is to blame for the Twin Towers coming down... do you think it's funny that all those people died?
NOTE: When I first viewed this photo, I was just looking primarily at "her". Stop and look at "him" and tell me what you see. I'll tell you what I see... I see that they've pasted bodies falling off his costume to imitate the actual victims who jumped out of the building. WOW... somehow that makes this thing just that much FUNNIER, doesn't it?
~gas where I live @ $1.99 today~
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Please see CA Gays Bully Prop 8 Supporters - Changed this voters mind which explains why this issue has now become an "issue" for me on any future ballots. In the past I felt it wasn't really something I needed to vote on because whether or not marriage extended to gays was not something I fretted over. If they put it on the ballot and were granted the right... that was fine with me. If they put it on the ballot and it didn't go through... I was fine with that as well.
Now... well... now things are different. Let us look at some recent events that particularly have pushed me in this direction.
What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List" - this is from Time.com.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which opponents say donated more than $20 million to the Yes on 8 campaign, has already become a focus of protests, with demonstrators gathered around Mormon temples not only in California but across the country.
African-Americans, 70% of whom voted yes on Proposition 8, according to a CNN exit poll, have become a target. According to eyewitness reports published on the Internet, racial epithets have been used against African-Americans at protests in California, directed even at blacks who are fighting to repeal Proposition 8. Said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, "In any fight, there will be people who say things they shouldn't say, but that shouldn't divert attention from what the vast majority are saying against this, that it's a terrible injustice.
In addition to protests, gay activists have begun publishing lists online exposing individuals and organizations who have donated money in support of Proposition 8. On AntiGayBlacklist.com, individuals who gave money toward Proposition 8 are publicized, with readers urged not to patronize their businesses or services. The list of donors was culled from data on ElectionTrack.com, which follows all contributions of over $1,000 and all contributions of over $100 given before October 17.
Meanwhile, lists of donors to Proposition 8, once trumpeted on the Yes on 8 Web site, have been taken down to protect individuals from harassment. "It's really awful," says Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Yes on Proposition 8. "No matter what you think of Proposition 8, we ought to respect people's right to participate in the political process. It strikes me as quite ironic that a group of people who demand tolerance and who claim to be for civil rights are so willing to be intolerant and trample on other people's civil rights."
"No matter what you think of Proposition 8, we ought to respect people's right to participate in the political process. It strikes me as quite ironic that a group of people who demand tolerance and who claim to be for civil rights are so willing to be intolerant and trample on other people's civil rights."
Exactly what I meant when I posted: "Running around rioting when you lose and rioting when you win tells me you don't care about anyone ELSE'S rights... so why should I care about yours?"
That truly does seem to be the bottom line here. No matter where you stand on an issue, if it is on a public ballot to be voted on, then each person has the legal right to vote as they choose without fear of intimidation or harm.
Perhaps the activists should take aim at officials or laws that made it legal to put the measure on the ballot to begin with, instead of targeting people that fought for what they believed in.
Gay activists that are acting like children, stomping their feet and having a temper tantrum, vandalizing churches, publishing personal information about people that dared oppose your point of view, is nothing short of intimidation and should not be tolerated at all.
When judgments come down in favor of gay rights, gay activists like to proclaim loudly that it is the Democratic way, the people have spoken and all that jazz, yet when the people vote, by a majority, slim or not, and 52 percent IS a majority, against something those same activists do not agree with, they act like out of control little spoiled brats.
Guess what folks? Life isn't always fair and sometimes the majority of voters do not agree with a minority group, it happens, grow the hell up and deal with it and work harder next time to get your own proposals passed, but stop acting out and showing your own intolerance while proclaiming that others are intolerant of you.
That simply makes you look hypocritical.
Proposition 8: The battle over gay marriage
About 52% of Californians voted yes on Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that alters the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. Use the Times interactive maps below to see how voters divided along geographic and demographic lines, as well as to compare the vote on Prop. 8 to other measures, including a nearly identical ban that passed by 61% in March 2000.
I understand that this is an interesting fact to this campaign... that Mormons contributed half and that they may be one of the big factors to the "yes" victory. Most of the protests have gone towards individuals or organizations that the protesters know won't retaliate. When was the last time anyone heard of a Mormon getting into a fist fight. Oh... I'm sure it happens, but it's fairly rare and if it does happen... the entire universe hears about it.
In the end, Protect Marriage estimates, as much as half of the nearly $40 million raised on behalf of the measure was contributed by Mormons.
To that end, the group that put the issue on the ballot rebuffed efforts by some groups to include a ban on domestic partnership rights, which are granted in California. Mr. Schubert cautioned his side not to stage protests and risk alienating voters when same-sex marriages began being performed in June.
“We could not have this as a battle between people of faith and the gays,” Mr. Schubert said. “That was a losing formula.”
But the “Yes” side also initially faced apathy from middle-of-the-road California voters who were largely unconcerned about same-sex marriage. The overall sense of the voters in the beginning of the campaign, Mr. Schubert said, was “Who cares? I’m not gay.”
The “Yes” campaign was denounced by opponents as dishonest and divisive, but the passage of Proposition 8 has led to second-guessing about the “No” campaign, too, as well as talk about a possible ballot measure to repeal the ban. Several legal challenges have been filed, and the question of the legality of the same-sex marriages performed from June to Election Day could also be settled in court.
For his part, Mr. Schubert said he is neither anti-gay — his sister is a lesbian — nor happy that some same-sex couples’ marriages are now in question. But, he said, he has no regrets about his campaign.
Mr. Otterson said it was too early to tell what the long-term implications might be for the church, but in any case, he added, none of that factored into the decision by church leaders to order a march into battle. “They felt there was only one way we could stand on such a fundamental moral issue, and they took that stand,” he said. “It was a matter of standing up for what the church believes is right.”
That said, the extent of the protests has taken many Mormons by surprise. On Friday, the church’s leadership took the unusual step of issuing a statement calling for “respect” and “civility” in the aftermath of the vote.
“Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues,” the statement said. “People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal.”
Mr. Ashton described the protests by same-sex marriage advocates as off-putting. “I think that shows colors,” Mr. Ashton said. “By their fruit, ye shall know them.”
It shows that these protesters are willing to attack those they know will not react in a violent manner. Instead, they will be prayed for or just smiled at and told that god loves them. Again... I don't see a problem with protesters with picket signs outside Mormon temples... I see a problem with people burning books of the Mormon faith or attempting any other type of intimidation to bring about a feeling of threat or a real threat for future voting.
Book of Mormon set ablaze on church door step - although I would like to point out that there's no proof that this incident was due to Prop 8... it does seem awfully coincidental, doesn't it.
LITTLETON, Colo. (AP)- A fire outside a Mormon church in Littleton is being investigated as a bias-motivated arson that may have stemmed from the church's position on a gay marriage amendment in California.FBI: Powder sent to Mormon headquarters nontoxic
Arapahoe County sheriff's deputies responded to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about 7:15 p.m. Tuesday, some three hours after a church member found a burning copy of The Book of Mormon on a door step.
No damage to the church was reported.
The caller who reported the fire told authorities that an LDS regional facilities manager indicated the incident may have been in retaliation to the church's stance on Proposition 8.
The measure passed last week bans same-sex marriage in the California constitution.
SALT LAKE CITY – The FBI says the white powder that spilled onto a mail clerk's hand at the Utah headquarters of the Mormon church is nontoxic.
FBI spokesman Juan T. Becerra said Friday that tests came back negative. The powder was in an envelope opened Thursday that was sent to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City.
Another letter with a suspicious powder arrived Thursday at a Mormon temple in Los Angeles. It also has been determined to be nontoxic.
The temples were the sites of recent protests against the church's support for California's gay marriage ban.
Becerra says the FBI is still investigating both cases.
Gee... these incidents make me want to give marriage rights to gays. I mean, if they can be so responsible as to threaten organizations with scare tactics then surely they can deal with the greater aspects of marriage... like individual freedoms of expression, caring for each other no matter what, loving unconditionally... you know... the stupid parts of marriage.
Confirmed: Huge Obama Surge Sealed Prop 8 Victory - check out this article which has some interesting facts on the way Obama supporters voted for Prop 8!!! See link below as well.
Dan Walters: Surge for Obama sealed Prop. 8's victory - Seems there's a large percentage of voters who voted YES for Obama and YES for Prop 8.
To put it another way, had Obama not been so popular and had voter turnout been more traditional – meaning the proportion of white voters had been higher – chances are fairly strong that Proposition 8 would have failed.
Some gay rights leaders have been bitter that voters from two ethnic groups that have experienced discrimination should vote so strongly to deny gays the right to marry. But they could take solace from the statistical probability that in an election with less excitement and a lower turnout, they'd probably prevail.
Schwarzenegger: Proposition 8 fight isn't over - wants CA Supreme Court to overturn
As protesters took to the streets for a fifth day, Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger yesterday expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would
overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage.
Barrack Obama on Gay Marriage - Click here to watch the VIDEO of Obama during an interview wherein he states the following.
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
In other words... he is not in favor of gay marriage but he is in favor of it. I'm confused.
Prop 8 is proving that the issue of gay marriage is not Republican vs. Democrat or Conservative vs. Liberal or even Right vs. Left (see Schwarzenegger vs. Obama above). It isn't about black vs. white vs. Latino or any other ethnic background... many whites didn't care one way or the other and it turns out many blacks and Latinos did care.
The outcome of this issue in California proves that we as Americans have views about issues important to us that have NOTHING to do with our political background, heritage, race, gender, etc. etc. It has everything to do with what an individual believes in or feels is important!!
This is a free country and we decide based on many different factors... this issue proves that there are still some people who are making choices based primarily on what they believe... not what the masses pressure them into thinking.
Now... based on that and based on what the protesters are doing, like disrupting church services, confronting voters, setting fires, targeting those who will silently do nothing... it seems clear that they are in favor of making it public knowledge of how a voter votes; unless of course, it does not favor them. I make that last little comment based entirely on how they're acting... forcing your rights on people by taking the rights of others away or somehow disrupting those rights only proves that you're "in it" only for yourself!
Question: Since they're protesting Catholics and Mormons... why not Muslims?
I was doing a little research and came across this page.
What is forbidden in Islam- Homosexuality or practicing Homosexuality?
The common concept for Muslim homosexuals is to commit suicide since they can't be punished for being homosexuals in a non-Islamic state, but two wrongs don't make one right. While homosexuality is wrong, it doesn't justify suicide under any conditions or circumstances. Please know that if you ever commit suicide, you would have seriously misunderstood Islam and its spirit.
Please look at that last sentence...
Please know that if you ever commit suicide, you would have seriously misunderstood Islam and its spirit.
I'm sure it wasn't meant to imply that a person could commit suicide and then read this article... but it sure sounds that way.
Anyway... back to my original question... why not protest Muslim voters who voted YES on Prop 8?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The ballot for Proposition 8 was simply "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." The text to be added to the constitution was "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."If you put something on the ballot, you take a chance on not getting your way. If you don't get what you want, you try it again... you don't go out and bully or engulf those who disagree with you with anger.
... CA Press Doesn't Address Implications of Theater Director's Resignation Over Prop 8 Support
The litmus test results are in: If you're against the legalization of same-sex marriage and are discovered, you can't be involved in the performing arts in California, even though the majority of potential patrons in your state agree with you.
Under the pressure of a threatened boycott, the artistic director of a Sacramento theater has stepped down after it was learned that he contributed to Yes side ("yes, same-sex marriage should be prohibited") of the supposedly Golden State's Proposition 8 campaign.
... Theater Director Forced to Resign Because Prop 8 Support-THE BLACKLIST IS BACK
Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theatre is being forced to resign his post and leaving the organization due to a donation to the movement supporting the amendment. Because of Eckern's support, playwrights and other artists mounted a boycott of the theater and promised not to stop unless Eckern resigned.
... Here are some photos of people supporting Scott Eckern: Exclusive: Photos Of Protest In Support Of Scott Eckern - funny how the media sort of let it fall between the cracks.
Perhaps a list can be generated in order to boycott businesses who did not support Prop 8. I wonder how the media would react to such an action. Would they rush to the scene to report how people were protesting against those who didn't support it? Or would they call the protest a "group of hate mongers"?
It's amazing how it's okay for some people to protest and it's called equal rights... but when it's reversed, suddenly the protesters are racist or hate mongers.
I don't live in California and I'm mildly interested in the issue of gays getting married... but I will not support it if comes here because of one factor and one factor only; the way people act when they don't get their way tells me everything I need to know. My past inclination would be to not vote one way or the other... they changed my mind.
The only thing worse than a poor loser is a poor winner. Running around rioting when you lose and rioting when you win tells me you don't care about anyone ELSE'S rights... so why should I care about yours?
One other thing... why do they feel compelled to push their sexuality in my face? When was the last time a bunch of heterosexuals had a parade to commemorate their sexuality and the fact they have sex with those of the opposite sex?
Please... please don't tell me that gay right parades are not about sex. I've seen some of the parades and witnessed some of the people locked in cages and wearing outrageous outfits usually not seen in public. They are there to flaunt what they are and what they do... their objective is to SHOCK and MORTIFY as many people as possible; especially anyone who is modest.
There are gays in those parades who are not dressed that way and you just know that some are embarrassed to be seen with the "outrageous" and the "odd". It would be the same if I were in a parade with heterosexuals wearing something they found at a sex shop. It's really not a matter of sexual preference so much as a matter of common sense. Keep that stuff in your own home... I could care less what you do there; that's why we invented walls and locked doors.
Gateway Pundit: Another Victim Falls Prey to Pink Mafia
Wake up America: Utah Mormon Temple Evacuated After Receiving White Powder Substance
Gateway Pundit: Gay Terror-- Activists Send White Powder to Mormon Temples
Monday, November 10, 2008
Michigan liberals attack Lansing congregation in the middle of Sunday worship - briefly... about 30 "individuals" overran a church in order to shout that "Jesus was gay," (and other things) as they rushed the stage. Some tried to hang a profane banner while others tossed fliers into the air. Two women began kissing at the pulpit. For props, they used "a video camera, a megaphone, noise makers, condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric." This went on apparently while a "journalist" from the Lansing City Pulse came along as a witness (not bothering to prevent the vandalism or violence)."
~ This type of behavior only enforces how little respect they have for others and how bad it looks for gays everywhere. This is the type of garbage that makes every-day citizens NOT want to speak to gays let alone give them their own special rights... and based on this bit of action, they WANT special rights. Being disrespectful just for the sake of getting attention is childish. By the way... this group of gays does not represent those I have met personally; those I have met would be embarrassed to be associated with this group.~
"It's important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one. "
~I see... so Obama is now the ruler of the free world, not just the leader. Is anyone else's blood pressure rising?~
And as David Drake mentions here about possible future gas price increases -
"Environmentalists on Monday applauded an announcement that U.S. President-Elect Barack Obama would consider curtailing oil and gas drilling in some areas, and expressed hope future energy policy decisions would contain more environmental protections."
~I love how people at work keep saying "did you see how low gas was this weekend... it cost me less than $40 to fill my tank!!!"
Not for long ladies, not for long. ~
And this one really makes me impressed at how the Democrats or the Liberals or the Left (whatever you want to call them and whomever wants to take credit) respect our CURRENT president.
Proposal Would Rename SF Sewage Plant After Bush - "Some residents were only too happy to sign the petition. "It seems like a good way to commemorate one of the people who is the most full of what's in the sewage plant," suggested James Chiancini."
~Luckily there are some who are also appalled. This isn't humor and it isn't respectful. I don't care how much I dislike Bill Clinton... I still don't feel naming a sewage plant after him is appropriate. Or is it?? ~
For those of you who actually made it to the bottom of this post, I would like to share with you something I overheard at work today from the same ladies who are extremely happy about Obama being president. These are not exact quotes because, unlike others, I was actually trying to work [while eavesdropping... :o)... but I couldn't help it since she was just 5 feet from me].
Today, Lady A said to Lady B that she feels that the extreme wealthy don't need such an enormous amount of money because they don't need it to live and having huge homes is really not necessary. She announced in a "quiet whispering like voice" that she's very close to being socialist and feels that socialism works (using Norway as an example). She thinks that when everyone is in the middle class, then there are no poor people and lots of happy people.
Literally two minutes later, Lady A came back to Lady B to tell a story about a man she knows. This man has to go to court for fighting wherein he was the one who was attacked. He apparently said the wrong things about unions while surrounded by union mambers. The point of her story was to show that it was unfair that he was being charged with "anything" because he wasn't the one who did the attacking; just the provoking.
Her final words were that it was this man's right to say these things because of freedom of speech.
So she feels socialism will help everyone live in the middle class, which will make them happy, but also feels freedom of speech is important. Since socialism does not promote the idea of freedom of speech anywhere close to America's laws, I'm left wondering how she knows that the people living in a socialist society are happy if they can't speak out against their government (or more than likely, feel helpless to do so).
I'm just say'n...
"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but ... I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you -- we as a people will get there."
Recovery 'is not going to be quick' Obama says
He said also that he had consulted with all living former presidents, who were gracious, and joked that "I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any séances." Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer while her husband was in the White House. A spokeswoman said Mr. Obama later called Mrs. Reagan to apologize for the joke and that they had a warm conversation.
Mr. Obama left the door open to the possibility that economic conditions might prompt him to change his tax plan that would give a break to most families but raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 annually.
"I think that the plan that we've put forward is the right one, but obviously over the next several weeks and months, we're going to be continuing to take a look at the data and see what's taking place in the economy as a whole," he said.
Obama team crafting early game plan:
... His team is tamping down expectations of instant action by discouraging talk of a 100-day program.
Good luck with that. As Stephen Hess, the Brookings Institution expert on the presidency says in his new book on presidential transitions "What Do We Do Now?" that's been tried by other presidents, like Richard Nixon.
"But on every Day One Hundred of every new presidency, every presidential scholar in the country will be called by a reporter for his or her assessment of the president's failures."
So new presidents are expected to hit the ground running and that's even more true for Obama since he's dealing with not just the economic and financial crisis but all the promises he made during his campaign, from rapidly unwinding the U.S. position in Iraq to expanding health-care to cutting taxes for those making less than $250,000.
From the sound of it, it appears that Obama's advisers are wisely going try and limit what they try to accomplish legislatively in their first one hundred days since a president and Congress can only handle so much at one time.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
One of the ladies here at work is on the phone telling how she cried when Obama won and how she’s so excited. She said that she has heard that people say he LEANS towards socialism and her response is “ya… ya… I know, we need change”. She has expressed how she thinks socialism is better, so she’s definitely happy about what has happened. Socialism has never worked and it only has one direction…
She’s still going on about how wonderful it is that a black man has become president… and she’s crying. She seems to be like so many others that apparently think this is somehow retribution to all that has ever happened to “them” in our history. She neglects to realize that other countries were far worse than ours in respect to slavery and how they don’t give individuals who are different equal rights, even TODAY. There is no law in our country that states a person can not succeed due to color… as a matter of fact, we’ve done all we can to avoid it. So when they say “finally, justice is served” I wonder just what injustice they are talking about.
Oh… and TODAY she’s proud to be an American.
Another lady here mentioned how someone she knows voted for Obama to get rid of the “them vs. us” mentality. I’ve never thought that… ever! We are all Americans or we are not. Voting for someone because you hope it will equal things out is stupid… what about his policies?
Have I just been completely blind to how horrible it must be to be different than others? Hell, I am different than others… I was not born with the perfect nose or mouth… should I now feel I deserve retribution; perhaps a hand out. Maybe I shouldn’t be happy and proud to be an American until someone who went through the exact same thing I went through is president. Perhaps I should feel bitter and demand that those with a perfect face give me “something” to pay for my pain. Perhaps my son, who has never felt my childhood experiences, should also get something for my pain?
Some would say there’s a huge difference… really? My childhood, on into the early years of my adult life, were filled with name calling and being excluded from groups due to how I looked. I went through a job rejection due to the fact I would have to deal with the public and their company appearance was very important. I experienced it personally. I don’t see much of a difference.
What I won’t do is force my son to feel prejudice towards others who look like those who hurt me long ago. That is why racism lives today… because we force our children to either feel they are “owed” something because of past hatred or we make them feel “guilty” for being on the wrong side of the coin.
I've had a FEW email conversations lately and thought I would share some of what was discussed. I do feel good that I'm not the only concerned American worried for my country, my life and the life of my children during the next 4 to 8+ years.
Many Americans voted based on the fear that there would be riots in the streets and that a second Civil War was about to break out. Reminds me of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. We'll walk down the streets pretending to be “one of them” and say something like “freedom of speech” or "America is great" and everyone will start hissing and beating us senseless.
Remember all of the gaffes Biden made during the election? Remember how it looked like he was trying to lose the election? Turns out he could have said anything and it would not have mattered.
People this year voted with their feelings because it felt good to vote for change. They voted for someone who's only real campaign plug was "Yes we can... we can CHANGE." And that is why people got out to vote... pretty, flowery words of hope with nothing of substance to back it up. What kind of change, Barack? Seems he made it perfectly clear that the change will be whatever is the best for his agenda of absolute power.
What about all of the other countries who were cheering for Obama? Interesting how some of them are actually our enemies... or are supporting our enemies. They feel Obama will destroy capitalism and freedom in America and thus allow their forces of terrorism to wander in and casually take us over. Slavery is right around the corner if we just sit on our couches and let it happen.
What about my job? I hear the ladies at my work talk about how "things will change now" and everything is going to get better once Obama is in office. And I'm curious just what they think will happen once Obama's tax plans go into affect. I wonder if they think the owners will just take a hit to their own bank accounts because they have to pay more taxes.
Let's look at it this way. Last year we received raises, bonuses and profit sharing and we were able to hire new employees when the work increased. Once Obama's tax plan go into affect, this is what will happen.
- IF we end up getting a raise, it will be the bare minimum
- IF we get bonuses, they will be very small
- IF we get profit sharing, it will barely be worth getting because it goes straight into our 401K
- IF taxes are too high, they will let people go and those remaining will take up the slack for less money
- Plus… I work in the durable medical equipment industry and if we go to socialized medicine like other countries, the company will not exist the way it does now. All medical equipment will have to be provided out of hospitals.
So why are they so happy? People just don’t think about the consequences... they just want change for the sake of changing.