Sunday, December 14, 2008

Just Wondering

I just saw one of those ads by another of the illustrious "big three" assuring me that I would be able to get one of their less-than-well-designed-and-built cars (my description, not theirs) for what they call their employee pricing rates.

Just wondering.  Why don't I get the owner pricing rates since I am now paying my hard-earned tax money to keep them in business?  It obviously matters not whether they make a profit or cover their costs, so why don't they increase sales by lowering the prices to those of us who subsidize them?

Also, is it true that Upchuck Shumer (Dem-NY), in the Senate grill room, asked the idiot CEO's what volume of sales it would take to break even, at a loss of $2,000-$3,000 a car?

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Democratics and Republicanics

Have you ever had one of those little nonsensical things that just nags at you and nags at you and ...?

Why is it that a member of the Republican Party is called a  Republican , but a Democrat proclaims membership in the Democratic Party?

I mean, if the name of the party is Democratic, shouldn't the proper noun for a member of that party be a Democratic?  Or, should members of the Republican Party more properly call themselves Republicanics?

Actually, I had never heard of the Democrat Party being referred to as the "Democratic Party" until, maybe, 8 or 10 years ago.  Now, it has virtually replaced the original name.  This year they even had that term on the Texas ballots, which I am fairly positive is a new development.

As I said, this is not a big deal in the total scheme of national politics, but it does tend to grate.  It is just not consistent with the natural order of things.  It is probably one of the unintended consequences of Algore's invention of the internet.  It could, of course, be a conspiracy by some of the Democratics to subliminally suggest that the other parties are not little-d democratic, but, they wouldn't be that dumb.  Would they?

Wikipedia is, of course, no help.  The articles are most likely written by historians.  Enough said?

Anyway, it is not likely to be a concern for me much longer.  We Republicans are quickly center-lefting ourselves into oblivion, and the Democratics are speeding toward becoming The Global American Socialist Party. 

I guess we will then call them the Repugnants and the GASP's.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Global warming?

I was reading some of the comments in response to one of the Town Hall articles and found a comment by some liberal idiot (I know, redundant!) who calls himself Science Avenger.  I could only assume that SA considered himself to be a scientist, or at least to know about science.

SA was on a mini-tirade about, among other things, how stupid it is to deny global warming.

Well, Avenger, I truly believe that the human-generated impact to our planet's environment (throughout the sum of our existence, including our time as monkeys, as you also assert) is significantly smaller than the correllation between logical thought and the liberal brain (i.e., infinitesmal).  The next time you talk to Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy, ask them what their fellow dinosaurs thought about a couple of those volcano eruptions.  Now, that was what I call impact to the environment!

But, with that said, I will promise you that I can be persuaded to change my mind.  All you have to do is show me how the so-called "consensus" on global warming can be proven through application of the scientific method.  Once you can do that, there is no longer consensus, there is irrefutable proof.

Surely, as a "scientist," you are familiar with the scientific method. 

Or, maybe not!

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Do you think I am racist just because...#3

NOTE:  Please refer to my previous post, Do You Think I am a Racist Just Because..., for the background and context of this post.


Do you think I am racist just because...I don't respect Barack Obama and am never likely to, and it is not all due to his shady associations.  I reserve the right to change my mind, and will gleefully do so, if he turns out to be a president who governs in a manner that preserves and protects our Constitution.


I have seen absolutely nothing from Barack Obama that gives me any reason to respect him.  There is the matter of being a smooth talker, but all of the great con men of the world are smooth talkers (e.g., Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, even Al Gore at times).  As it has with those others, only time will tell if the smooth talk is backed up by wisdom and insight, or just by some brains and a lot of cunning.

I don't respect him because of his penchant for using people and then leaving them by the wayside, particularly members of his own family.  He has the temerity to talk in terms of waking up to family responsibilities, and yet he doesn't make even minimal attempts to better life for his own flesh and blood.  To me, this reveals a certain shallowness of soul. 


I don't respect him for deviously bringing race into the campaign, just to get an edge. 


I don't respect him for agreeing to use matching funds, and then backing out.  Very cunning move, that, and it worked well for him, but it was not the act of an honorable man.

Most of all, I don't respect him because I perceive that he and the Dems are going to make every effort to lead this country down a path to socialism.  God help us, and moreso, our future generations!

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Do You Think I am a Racist Just Because...#2

NOTE:  Please refer to my previous post, Do You Think I am a Racist Just Because..., for the background and context of this post.


Do you think I am racist just because... I believe that, in this day and age, black leaders are more to blame for their current social and economic situations than any overt racist activities by individuals or groups?

Oh, yes, there are a lot of racists out there who are delighted at any opportunity to put down a black person, directly or indirectly.  Thankfully, our country has made great strides in condemning and suppressing those people, who now have to scurry into their rat-holes when the light is turned on them.  We are two or three generations into that particular cleansing process.  Why is it still used as a crutch?

I do understand that there are a lot of people who are stuck in places and situations which they have neither the knowledge nor resources to control.  I am not pointing fingers and saying that they should just get up and move on to better things.  I am saying that they should look around and question their leaders (church, community, political, etc.) about what new approaches can be tried to break with the failed efforts.  A perfect example is the almost total adherence to the Democrat Party, despite irrefutable evidence that it uses them for elections and ignores them between elections.  Let's see, the Dems gather them up to go vote, and then how long is it before the Dems are seen again?  Answer:  next election. 

That party has done nothing for at least forty years to actually improve their living and educational conditions (and, in truth, it was Republicans and Conservative Democrats who did anything then), and yet the leaders keep accepting whatever the poverty pimps push on them. 

One would think that one of those leaders would one day say, "Well, forty years is proof to me.  We might as well see what some other group has to offer.  Can it be any worse?"

I don't really know for a fact, but I gather that the most influential leaders in  Black communities and neighborhoods are pastors.  I wonder just what percentage of those pastors point out to their church members the amazing accomplishments of Clarence Thomas, J.  C. Watts, Condileeza Rice, or Thomas Sowell and establish them as models for the community.  Or do they brand them as traitors to their race, or worse, because they happen to be of the conservative persuasion.  What an absolute travesty!

I have heard it said that white people have no right to tell blacks who their leaders should be.  That is undoubtedly true, but I  do have the right to tell them they are not being very smart about it, IF their interest is to help their followers to adapt to, and embrace, the modern world.

To me, that is a leadership problem, not a racism problem

Monday, November 10, 2008

Do you think I am Racist Just Because...

We are seeing a number of post-election articles extolling the sudden advancement of race relations in America because B. H. Obama was elected to our presidency.  The tone and intent of these articles vary widely, for instance, Harry R. Jackson, Jr. (Race Still Matters, Townhall.com, Nov 10, 2008) presents a positive suggestion for the coming together of churches to effect a faith-based approach to closing the racial divide.  On the other hand, Ken Connor (Still a Long Way to Go for Equality, Townhall.com, Nov 9, 2008) lectures us about how we have now shown that we are no longer a racist nation by this election.  I am afraid that Mr. Connor is being a little devious, in that the real purpose of his article seems to be to get us to give up our bigotry towards other areas of human rights.  You should read his article, as he makes some valid points.  Indeed, his concerns are, to me, much more valid than his introductory point.  I may be a little sensitive here, but it seems that his use of the "racism" term to bring attention to his real agenda smacks of – racism.
  
These particular articles are, by no means, being questioned as to the intent or sincerity of the authors.  They are simply convenient examples based on a major flaw (my word, not theirs) in the current, wildly popular premise that America has been a racist country, and now, all of a sudden, that has gone away.  Racism has been dying out in this country for quite a while now, and we should all be better off for it.  Those of us who understand and applaud the fact ARE better off for it.

Those individuals and groups, black and white, who perpetuate, and try to profit from, the practice of systematic racism need to look deep within themselves and learn to accept people on their merits, not use or mis-use them because of skin color.  Will this election put to rest the prejudices and abuses of these people, who truly are racist, no matter their color?  Left to their own devices, probably not.  After all, even racists have most of the rights in our country.  Ironically, it seems that the black proponents of racism (the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons) will likely be more affected by this election than the hate-mongers on the white side.  It may be a little harder for them to sell their “snake oil” in the light of facts, such as we have elected a black president.  I would suggest to the new president and his old party that, rather than pass a lot of new laws to control the white racists, just ignore them and let that particular brand of hate die with them.  It is dying out, you know?

So, all of the above is provided to set the stage for a series of questions and/or comments that I plan to introduce, and hopefully to get some feedback,  detailing those things that I think many people attribute as racist attitudes simply because they in some way are connected to a minority.  I will define the point and then try to give you my thoughts on the “racial” connotations.  I am, obviously, hoping to generate some good discussion, but, if that does not occur, I will have gotten my thoughts down in writing

I am doing this as an informal poll.  If you choose to participate, just give me your answer and add any comments you may have.  Instead of trying to cram all of the questions into a single post, I will present additional questions in subsequent posts.  In that way, we can give each of the subjects its appropriate level of attention.

Do not be mis-led by the seemingly lighthearted approach to my poll.  Rest assured that the specific questions or points raised in this effort have been of major concern to me for many years. 

For the sake of limiting the tedium, there are a few guidelines on participation:


1. I, and other readers, do not know you and are, therefore, likely to judge your intelligence by the clarity and civility of your writing.  Only you know how you want to be viewed by others, but I will appreciate everyone keeping it clean and civil.
2. Remember, we would like to have the benefits of your own thoughts, so no cheating or referring to Talking Points from either party.  That will keep us from having to read through the same boring “intellectual stimuli” over and over;
3. Please do not read just the first few words and jump straight to a conclusion.  The idea is to generate some thought and maybe even a little discussion;
4. Likewise, maintain a little intellectual honesty in your thought processes.  Unless you are using group-think, the only person you will be lying to is yourself;
a. According to exit polls, 47% of Americans think it is pretty dumb to do that (lie to yourself, that is), 33% asked if there was any alternative, 15% said that sounded racist to them and 5% voted “present”
b. The margin for error is impossible to calculate because a number of self-proclaimed moderates changed their responses several times.
c. I used the Washington Ethical Behavior Standard  (WEBS) in developing these statistics, so don’t waste your time trying to verify them, or my time (and that of the other readers, if we have any) in trying to refute them
5. Main stream media types, there is no need for you to use your valuable Palin research time (and/or Obama worship time) to participate in our little project.  I have already written down your collective “yes” simply because I am a white male, born and raised in an extremely small Southern town;
6. Bill O’Reilly should not vote because it will not sell any books for him.  If you want to know the depths of my admiration for this court jester, you can read a couple of my previous posts;
7. Carl Cameron should not vote because no one will be whispering in his excitable little ears for a “major” scoop (see the next item).  Need to vet those sources a little better, Carl.  You are dangerously close to being grouped with Chrissie Matthews in the “tingly-leg media,” and
8. McCain campaign staff twerps will not be blamed or credited with the results here, so there is no need to clutter Carl’s telephone with whispered un-sourced accusations that Governor Palin is funding this with her lingerie allowance.
Otherwise, all Americans, including those who let themselves be hyphenated and are proud of it, those who abandoned their party and conservative principles when the going got a little tough, and those narrow-minded liberals who never open their thought processes to anything that moveon.org doesn’t tell them, are welcome to interject their Two Cents’ Worth, as it were, into the discussion.
  
We will, of course, be willing to provide the results to Bill Ayers for inclusion in his soon-to-be-award-winning education reform efforts for the Chicago schools.  One only has to look at the state of education in Chicago schools to see that his endeavors are at least as deserving as Al Gore (his personal carbon footprint is growing at an astounding rate) and Jimmy
Rabbits-are-meaner-than-Iranians Carter.

So, here we go:

How many of you think I am racist  just because…I voted for John McCain (actually, of course, I voted for Sarah Palin but it has the same force and effect) instead of Barack Obama (and the piteous Joe the Biden)?

The prevailing theory in Democrat circles (including the msm) and the Republican turncoats such as Colin Powell seems to be that everyone who did not take this historic opportunity to vote for Obama did so only because of overt racism (isn't that racist in itself?  Oh, of course not, blacks can't be racists, can they?). 

However, let me clue you in on a dirty little secret - if Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Lynn Swann or J. C. Watts were running for national office, I would support them in a heartbeat.

You see, it has to do with the agreement that you have, or do not have, with their core beliefs.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Bribes and Republicans!

In "Top 10 Recipients of Fannie and Freddie Cash," theWire, page 16, Townhall magazine, November 2008, the information is revealing and frankly, disgusting!

It has been fairly widely trumpeted by everyone in the country except John McCain, his campaign, and the main stream media that Chris Dodd and Barack Obama were the top two recipients of bribe money from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wealth distribution officials.  Even Bill O'Reilly managed to work up some indignation over that until the cameras were turned off (and he realized that it was not going to sell any books).  It was somewhat lesser known that John Kerry is number three.  Disgusting, but not the least bit surprising, I would say.

What did surprise, and absolutely infuriate, me is the fact that three Republicans (Sen. Robert Bennett, Rep. Spencer Baucus and Rep. Roy Blunt) are numbers four, five and six on that list.  In addition, Republican Senators Christopher Bond and Richard Shelby have the dubious honor of filling the eighth and ninth slots on this distinguished list of scumbags.

It reveals more than a little about why there was no hue and cry to tree the perpetraitors (new word that) and pick them off one by one. 

I was not the least bit surprised about the Democrats.  In fact, until I saw the Townhall article, I just assumed that the remainder of the Top 10 would be populated with less accomplished Dem grifters.

But, hold on, Mabel!  That was a dumb assumption!  I feel absolutely ashamed by the presence of five Republicans on this list.   I am not a generally a naive person, and would not have been surprised at one, or even two, but I did think that there were some limits on such behavior, and that we could depend on our party to hold its members to a higher standard.  The only difference between this bunch and William Jefferson is that he owns a freezer.

I personally will never see or hear one of those five names again without gagging.

Out with such trash!

Friday, November 7, 2008

Here's a Word For You, O'Reilly!

Buffoon!

While you and Luntz are sitting there preening and slapping each other on the back, your supposed journalistic credentials are falling down around your ankles.

Indeed, Obama scored high with the little group of "independent voters."  And you high-fived one another that he hit a home run with his promise to give all citizens the same insurance coverage that Congress has.  Well, as a retired civil servant, I paid, and still pay, about $400 a month for my insurance coverage.  The Government pays some amount (probably about the same) as their share of the benefits package that was a part of my total compensation for my work for 30 years.

So you are impressed with the popularity of his answer that potentially translates into about $10-12,000 a year of our tax money for each family which receives it.  I'm willing to bet there were no more than one or two people in the room who had a concept of the cost associated with that little promise.  And there are no journalists who would even think of questioning it.

Your claim to be looking out for the people is as shallow as your willingness to dig into the facts.  I never expect a straight answer from Obama, and I guess it's too much to expect you to try to get one.  But, he looked you in the eye and you know he would only speak the truth to you, right?

You, sir, are a buffoon.

By the way, where does your hard-hitting expose of B Franks and the other thieves stand?  Just more bloviating, I guess!

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Advice for Grover

This from the November 6, 2008, Townhall column by Michael R. Blood, entitled "Can Palin Resurrect the GOP?  Does She Want To?"

"Grover Norquist, a leading conservative and president of Americans for Tax Reform, called Palin "one of five or six people who is a plausible candidate for president in 2012," along with familiar names like Mitt Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich."

A leading conservative, is Grover?  Is he a "leading conservative" in the mold of those who abandoned the party's candidate when the going got tough?  A suggestion, Grover.  Maybe you should look over your shoulder and see where the unwashed masses are heading, so you can run over and get in front of us.  If you try to force more of that elitest moderate claptrap on us, you may very well find that we have decided that a new party is the way to go. 

Sarah Palin has earned the right to be the leading candidate for the next election, if she feels like putting up with the Squealers  and the back-biters in the McCain staff (what a bunch of clowns!).  Frankly, I will not blame her if she decides to stay in Alaska to shoot moose.  That Grover dismisses her as one of five or six does not inspire much confidence in me that they learned anything.

Newt Gingrich is, to my mind, a true conservative hero, but, for whatever reason, he effectively chose to sit this one out.  He has some mending to do to get me interested in picking him over Sarah.

I don't know much about Romney, other than his religion.  I suspect that item alone will inspire enough divisiveness within the party to render him as less than a true force in a battle to unseat an incumbent, even a socialist.

Rick Perry is a grub!  An ultimate RINO!  He spearheaded a drive to add a new tax on the profits of businesses here in Texas, and, through his own personal leadership, got it passed.  I'll bet you $5.00 right now that he would not even carry Texas!

So, if you can find someone who is better than Sarah, and who convinces me that he is better, so be it.  I will be happy to support that person.  But beware of buying into the feeding frenzy that is trying desperately trying to discredit Sarah Palin, and be very cautious about trying to cut her legs from under her.  We, the non-leading conservatives, may not be nearly as stupid as you think.  The Independent Party (or some other) may find it's ranks swelling with dis-enfranchised Republicans.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Can they really be that stupid?

Are these turncoats really supposed to influence me by their "defections" to support the biggest threat to our country's existence since the Civil War?  Colin Powell, somebody named Adelman, Christopher Hitchens, a couple of lily-livered columnists?

To me, the proffered reasons for their actions are as shallow as Powell's insight into the oil-for-food scandal that was going on right under his nose at the U.N.  I am left to draw the conclusion that, as some have speculated, the only logical reason for these people to do this is the fear of getting cut off from their social circles in Washington.

I guess one could speculate about the possibility that they are "sleepers," put in place by Moscow many years ago to be awakened by the voice of the Chosen One.  As silly as it sounds, that makes about as much sense as the logic they used.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Take a day off

I see where Obama The Charma is doing some community organizing.  He has asked that his followers take off on Election Day (to honor him, I suppose).  At least it would not result in a big loss of productivity, since approximately 40%* of his Kool-aid drinkers don't have a job, and another 42%* can't think for themselves well enough to be productive, anyway.

*Based on approximations provided by all the professional pollsters. 

Monday, October 27, 2008

Ted Stevens gives Alaska a Chance

It seems to me that the good people of Alaska can do us all a service.  To keep the Dimocrats from cashing in on this old creep's conviction, they should write in Sarah Palin to fill that seat.  If she wins that race and carries McCain to victory in the Presidential race, she could then appoint an appropriate person to fill the Senate seat.  If The Chosen One manages to buy/cheat/lie his way into the White House (will that now be considered a racist term?) she would go on to serve in the Senate.

Update:  Well, upon further digging, it seems that Alaska's laws do not allow what I suggested. They do have a process that could result in her getting elected, though!

Thursday, October 23, 2008

A manufactured crisis?

When Vornado-mouth Biden made his brag/guarantee that a president Obama-the-One would be tested on the world stage within six months of his inauguration, every one assumed that it was just another of his self-defining gaffes.  Note that he also asserted that it would look as if they had made an incorrect response but that everyone should be cool and it would be revealed to us that the all-knowing, all-seeing, chosen one would have everything under control.

One has to wonder if there have already been meetings (without pre-conditions, one assumes) with one or two of their socialist friends to generate plans for a little bit of a "crisis" in order to establish the foreign policy bona-fides of the new administration.

Why do I think this is not only possible, but probable?  A couple of things lead me to it:

  1. This was a compound-thought "gaffe" from a man who, although highly developed in the gaffe tradition, is not seemingly capable of stringing thoughts together without at least one of them being a fabrication.
  2. These assertions did not sound like the usual Biden exaggeration.  They sounded more like a message to the base (see "bin Laden" for the approach and style).
  3. How could he know what their response would be to a supposedly undefined "crisis" that, even assuming he is correct in his estimate of the timing, is six to nine months in the future?
 I may very well be wrong about this, but, frankly, it fits so well with the Obama philosophy and background that I just can't shake free of the nagging thought.