I guess my reaction to this is mixed. Does anyone really take this drooling twit seriously or do they look at the vice-president and say, "wow, the VP said it, so we should really be worried (in which case one has to question peoples' intelligence)."
I'm referring to our glorious Vice-President's remarks last night regarding the swine-flu epidemic. This is part of what he said.
" 'I would tell members of my family -- and I have -- I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now. It's not that it's going to Mexico in a confined aircraft where one person sneezes, that goes all the way through the aircraft,' Biden said on NBC's 'Today' show."
Ok, let's look at the absurdity of this sentence. He won't go anywhere in confined places. Now, for example, a bathroom is a pretty confined area. Does this mean that Biden will start using diapers because he won't go into a restroom? Yeah, that would be a real interesting image... I also guess that Amtrak option is a no-go now...
" 'I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation, suggesting they ride the subway,' he said. 'From my perspective, this relates to mitigation. If you're out in the middle of the field and someone sneezes, that's one thing. If you're in a closed aircraft, a closed container, a closed car, a closed classroom, that's another thing' "
Who the hell would be in a closed container? Ok, so if Americans were to actually follow this mental giant's advice, we would not be driving to work, kids wouldn't be going to school (although it seems like schools are starting to overreact as well), or traveling. Now, let's really think about that for a moment. Kids would not be going to school, which impedes their education (and given the way public schools are now, kids need all the education they can get). But more serious is how not driving (or taking the bus or subway) to work or traveling would impact the economy. If you're not going to work, then you're not getting paid. If you're not getting paid, then how can one stimulate the economy? Same thing with traveling. If people aren't traveling and going to see places, then they aren't spending their money, which also impacts the economy. So essentially, if Americans were to take Hoof in Mouth's advice, the American economy would come to a screeching halt in a matter of weeks. Super brilliant there, Joe.
Of course, in the following paragraphs, the travel industry essentially made the same argument as I, probably because they understand more about economics than our esteemed VP.
"When asked by ABC New, press secretary Robert Gibbs replied: 'I think ... what the vice president meant to say was the same thing that again, many members have said in the last few days, that is, if you feel sick, if you are exhibiting flulike symptoms -- coughing, sneezing, runny nose -- that you should take precautions, that you should limit your travel.'
Gibbs apologized if anyone was 'unduly' alarmed but did not elaborate.
'Jake, I'm telling you what he meant to say,' he said to laughter."
No Gibbs, I'm pretty sure that Biden opened his mouth without thinking, which is generally par for the course. Gibbs last line was kind of bizarre. He replied to laughter? It conjured up a mental image from one of the Glen Larson shows I used to watch back in the 80's (Buck Rogers, the original Battlestar Galactica) when at the end of each show, someone would tell a joke, and the end would freeze up in the middle of them laughing and then the credits would come out. I kinda imagined Gibbs making that comment, and then all of the press started to laugh, the screen freezes and then the credits would start rolling out. It pretty much shows how chummy our 4th estate has gotten with the Obama Administration.
Probably the most surrealistic moment came when Nancy "Bimbette" Pelosi remarked on Slow Joe's advice.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also had a different message. She said she would not tell her family to stay off planes and public transportation, but would recommend to them the 'common-sense' approach, washing hands and covering sneezes or coughs.
'They are living their lives and, again, practicing common sense, good practices. And so it's not a question of not encouraging, not to travel. It's also a question of encouraging them not to leave home ... just because their states ... are the most, shall we say, suspicious in this case,' Pelosi told reporters."
You know, when Pelosi sounds like a comparative fountain of wisdom, the world has truly turned upside down.
You want to know the kicker? This swine flu epidemic has been blown completely out of proportion. It's actually milder than most forms of the flu. The reason why people are dying of this (cough, Mexico) is because of abyssmal hygiene levels. If you take basic precautions like washing your hands (which should be an automatic anyway, especially in this country), you should be fine. However, the administration and the media, has good reasons to keep this story going. The media loves to put people into a panic over the dumbest things (remember SARS?). The administration loves the political cover that this flu gives, because they can quietly push more crap legislation through Congress and no one would notice. And since the media is essentially acting like Pravda to this administration, it's a double bonus for them. They get a good story that they can trumpet to the heavens while giving political cover to their Messiah. As Rahm Emanuel said, never let a crisis go to waste.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Speaker Pelosi proves she's a first class idiot or "Republicans, take back your party!"
Wow, just when you thought "Bimbette" Pelosi couldn't get any dumber, she launches this plea out...
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi marked President Barack Obama's 100th day in office with some unsolicited advice for Republican voters, telling them to "take back" their party."
Yeah, because the GOP needs more Democrat-Lites to infiltrate the party...I'm assuming she's been emboldened by Specter's defection.
"The California Democrat offered her own analysis of the political environment for her political opponents, asserting Republicans across the country are more willing to work with Democrats than their leaders on Capitol Hill."
Uh, I don't know what she's looking at, but I saw Republicans mostly trying to fight the Democratic initiatives. But let's break this sentence down. She said that Republicans are more willing to work with Democrats. The same people who are pushing huge government and massive debt through massive spending. True Republicans are really willing to work with these initiatives? Really? Republicans may be unwilling to work with GOP leaders on Capitol Hill because the leaders in the Beltway have no idea what they stand for. I would say that the opposite is true. RINOs are wanna-be Democrats. They're not really Republicans. They certainly aren't conservative.
" 'Yes, there is -- shall we say -- a 'radical right-wing' element with whom they identify. But by and large, I say to Republicans in America: Take back your party. The party of protecting the environment. The party of individual rights. The party of fairness. This is not the Grand Old Party.' "
Yes, we should say it. We conservatives are right-wing, but hardly radical. The Republican Party is not the party of environmental-nuts. Those are your peeps, the leftists, Nancy. And we're not the party of fairness. We'll leave the uber-egalitarianism/socialism with you guys. You're the lockstep Marxists, remember? What is really fair in nature? Nothing. People move up in station in their lives because they're capable, not because of some overarching idea of "fairness." And speaking of lockstep, Bimbette is right about one thing. We are the party of individual rights. I do believe that the individual should be allowed to develop themselves to the best of their ability. But not by enacting laws designed to supposedly level a playing field by giving groups special rights and privileges. And that's really the heart of the matter. Republicans stand for the individual. Democrats stand for the group, or community, which is where Communism comes from. BTW, how would Nancy know what the GOP is and isn't? She should stick to worrying about what her own party does.
"Pelosi concluded her long riff about the GOP by saying, 'Our country needs a strong, diverse Republican Party.' Without missing a beat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid chimed in, saying 'not too strong.' "
Yuk, Yuk, Yuk, those Democrats, what a bunch of comedians... What they mean by diverse is a party that is either tied to the asinine values of the Democratic Party (hence the RINOs) or one that is so multi-dimensional that it stands for nothing. With enough "diversity," one eventually finds the substance lacking because it's been so watered down. And of course Reid comes in with his comment. I'm still laughing it up here. Ok, no I'm not...
"As Pelosi, Reid and other Democratic leaders ticked off a list of legislative accomplishments passed largely without Republican support, the speaker insisted she's tried to reach out to Republicans in Congress, but said it hasn't been easy."
Wow, they really got the mutual admiration society down pat, don't they? Yeah, as McCain said in one of the presidential debates last year, 'it's hard to reach out when you're that far to the left.' So let me get this straight: after patting yourselves on the back for all of the "wonderful" legislation passed in the last 100 days, you then get contrite about getting Republican support? Wow, talk about ballsy...
"Republicans in the House of Representatives 'are difficult to deal with, let's put it that way,' she said.
Asked about Pelosi's comment, House Republican Leader John Boehner responded curtly, 'She hasn't tried.' "
Yeah, because Republicans are such retards that they can't possibly understand your level of sophistication, eh, Nancy? Here's an idea. Perhaps lose the "tude," and maybe you'll find Republicans more responsive, assuming that was ever your intention to begin with. I'd agree with Boehner. She never tried to. But then, since she has the House locked up, she doesn't really need to.
Overall, I think Nancy tried to get cutesy, but it doesn't really come out that way. What it does look like is blatant patronizing. "Oh, if only you stupid Republicans could be as awesome as we are..." The fact is that Nancy, like Obama has a nasty inferiority complex. She didn't like it one bit when the Republicans are in control, and for the next two years (probably more than four), she's going to rub the Republicans in the shit as much as she can. How...mature...
Let me reiterate. Republicans are not losing because they are becoming right-wing extremist. They're losing because they still, at this late hour, have no coherent message. There is a conservative message and there's a RINO message. One eventually has to dominate the arena. Given how RINOs have done in the last decade, I'd rather it be the conservative message that wins out. It may take a while for the message to resonate, but it can win elections. Case in point, Barry Goldwater was unabashedly conservative and got utterly hammered in the 1964 presidential election. It was the worst presidential defeat until Mondale in 1984. But then, that's my point. Sixteen years after Goldwater's defeat and the "death of conservatism," the conservative movement won big in 1980 with Ronald Reagan. The key to victory is to embrace conservatism, not Democrat-Lite.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi marked President Barack Obama's 100th day in office with some unsolicited advice for Republican voters, telling them to "take back" their party."
Yeah, because the GOP needs more Democrat-Lites to infiltrate the party...I'm assuming she's been emboldened by Specter's defection.
"The California Democrat offered her own analysis of the political environment for her political opponents, asserting Republicans across the country are more willing to work with Democrats than their leaders on Capitol Hill."
Uh, I don't know what she's looking at, but I saw Republicans mostly trying to fight the Democratic initiatives. But let's break this sentence down. She said that Republicans are more willing to work with Democrats. The same people who are pushing huge government and massive debt through massive spending. True Republicans are really willing to work with these initiatives? Really? Republicans may be unwilling to work with GOP leaders on Capitol Hill because the leaders in the Beltway have no idea what they stand for. I would say that the opposite is true. RINOs are wanna-be Democrats. They're not really Republicans. They certainly aren't conservative.
" 'Yes, there is -- shall we say -- a 'radical right-wing' element with whom they identify. But by and large, I say to Republicans in America: Take back your party. The party of protecting the environment. The party of individual rights. The party of fairness. This is not the Grand Old Party.' "
Yes, we should say it. We conservatives are right-wing, but hardly radical. The Republican Party is not the party of environmental-nuts. Those are your peeps, the leftists, Nancy. And we're not the party of fairness. We'll leave the uber-egalitarianism/socialism with you guys. You're the lockstep Marxists, remember? What is really fair in nature? Nothing. People move up in station in their lives because they're capable, not because of some overarching idea of "fairness." And speaking of lockstep, Bimbette is right about one thing. We are the party of individual rights. I do believe that the individual should be allowed to develop themselves to the best of their ability. But not by enacting laws designed to supposedly level a playing field by giving groups special rights and privileges. And that's really the heart of the matter. Republicans stand for the individual. Democrats stand for the group, or community, which is where Communism comes from. BTW, how would Nancy know what the GOP is and isn't? She should stick to worrying about what her own party does.
"Pelosi concluded her long riff about the GOP by saying, 'Our country needs a strong, diverse Republican Party.' Without missing a beat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid chimed in, saying 'not too strong.' "
Yuk, Yuk, Yuk, those Democrats, what a bunch of comedians... What they mean by diverse is a party that is either tied to the asinine values of the Democratic Party (hence the RINOs) or one that is so multi-dimensional that it stands for nothing. With enough "diversity," one eventually finds the substance lacking because it's been so watered down. And of course Reid comes in with his comment. I'm still laughing it up here. Ok, no I'm not...
"As Pelosi, Reid and other Democratic leaders ticked off a list of legislative accomplishments passed largely without Republican support, the speaker insisted she's tried to reach out to Republicans in Congress, but said it hasn't been easy."
Wow, they really got the mutual admiration society down pat, don't they? Yeah, as McCain said in one of the presidential debates last year, 'it's hard to reach out when you're that far to the left.' So let me get this straight: after patting yourselves on the back for all of the "wonderful" legislation passed in the last 100 days, you then get contrite about getting Republican support? Wow, talk about ballsy...
"Republicans in the House of Representatives 'are difficult to deal with, let's put it that way,' she said.
Asked about Pelosi's comment, House Republican Leader John Boehner responded curtly, 'She hasn't tried.' "
Yeah, because Republicans are such retards that they can't possibly understand your level of sophistication, eh, Nancy? Here's an idea. Perhaps lose the "tude," and maybe you'll find Republicans more responsive, assuming that was ever your intention to begin with. I'd agree with Boehner. She never tried to. But then, since she has the House locked up, she doesn't really need to.
Overall, I think Nancy tried to get cutesy, but it doesn't really come out that way. What it does look like is blatant patronizing. "Oh, if only you stupid Republicans could be as awesome as we are..." The fact is that Nancy, like Obama has a nasty inferiority complex. She didn't like it one bit when the Republicans are in control, and for the next two years (probably more than four), she's going to rub the Republicans in the shit as much as she can. How...mature...
Let me reiterate. Republicans are not losing because they are becoming right-wing extremist. They're losing because they still, at this late hour, have no coherent message. There is a conservative message and there's a RINO message. One eventually has to dominate the arena. Given how RINOs have done in the last decade, I'd rather it be the conservative message that wins out. It may take a while for the message to resonate, but it can win elections. Case in point, Barry Goldwater was unabashedly conservative and got utterly hammered in the 1964 presidential election. It was the worst presidential defeat until Mondale in 1984. But then, that's my point. Sixteen years after Goldwater's defeat and the "death of conservatism," the conservative movement won big in 1980 with Ronald Reagan. The key to victory is to embrace conservatism, not Democrat-Lite.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Not really surprising...Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter changes from a passive to an active Democrat
Well, it's not like I didn't see this coming eventually.
"Veteran Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties Tuesday with a suddenness that seemed to stun the Senate, a moderate's defection that pushed Democrats to within a vote of the 60 needed to overcome filibusters and enact President Barack Obama's top legislative priorities."
This was hardly stunning. Specter has been essentially liberal for a long time. This move simply changes Specter from a pseudo-Democrat to an actual one. And with Franken gaining the Minnesota Senate seat with near certainty, it will give the Democrats the magical 60 votes needed to "bust" the filibuster. This will also unfortunately make the Republican Party essentially irrelevant until at least late next year. I certainly hope the RINOs are satisfied now.
"Specter, 79 and seeking a sixth term in 2010, conceded bluntly that his chances of winning a Pennsylvania Republican primary next year were bleak in a party grown increasingly conservative. But he cast his decision as one of principle, rather than fueled by political ambition as spurned GOP leaders alleged."
Yeah, and Specter is pretty much full of shit. His entire career has been one of political ambition. This is the jackass who gave us the "magic bullet" theory when JFK was assassinated. This guy was a Democrat until he switched parties in 1965 (running for the attorney general). Interestingly enough, he switched because he was about to lose in the Democratic primary. Specter has always been a total douchebag and this pretty much reinforces it. Of course he's doing it to stay in power! He's 79 years old, what else can he do with his life?
"Specter called the White House on Tuesday to notify Obama of his decision to switch. The president called back moments later, according to spokesman Robert Gibbs, to say the Democratic Party was 'thrilled to have you.'
Several officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said discussions of a possible switch had reached into the White House in recent days, although Gibbs said he had no details."
From what I read in other articles, VP 'Hoof in Mouth' Biden had a major hand in bringing Specter over. The idea of Obama "calling back" reinforces that, since if Specter called the White House, don't you think the President would talk to him? Again, this goes against the 'bolt from the blue' statement uttered elsewhere in this article. And why wouldn't Obama be thrilled to have Specter? After all, he just gave Obama a literal filibuster instead of one in the hands of a few RINOs.
"At his news conference, Specter grew animated as he blamed conservatives for helping deliver control of the Senate to Democrats in 2006, making it impossible to confirm numerous judicial appointees of former president George W. Bush.
"They don't make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party. I don't understand it, but that's what they said," he added."
Huh? How is it that conservatives are to blame? The RINOs have been running this party for almost a decade now. They pushed their candidates in 2004, 2006 and 2008. And what was the outcome? A party that had no message whatsoever, increased spending and a party that was essentially Democrat-Lite. And we're to blame? Please Arlen, do a better job of covering your ass.
"Ironically, Specter had spoken recently about the importance of a strong Republican presence in the Senate.
'If we lose my seat they have 60 Democrats, they will pass card check, you will have the Obama tax increases, they will carry out his big spending plans. So the 41st Republican, whose name is Arlen Specter, is vital to stopping tax increases, passage of card check and the Obama big spending plans.' "
So... let me get this straight. To deny the Democrats the magical 60th Senate seat, you decided to head over and become the 60th seat. Wow, Arlen, you really are a fucking numbnut, if you actually believe anything you say, which is doubtful. After all, you did go along with the big spending plans and you are for the budget (i.e. tax increases) so how is keeping you as a RINO Republican going to change that? However, I will say that you answered your own question by speaking of yourself in the third-person by somehow being the savior of the GOP. So it's not really about the Republicans so much as really helping yourself (wow, talk about narcissism).
Well, I have to admit I have mixed feelings about this move. To be honest, Specter was essentially a Democrat and he will continue to vote that way in the future. Therefore, I don't believe that this is as big a loss as many might fear. Yes, this gives the Democrats the filibuster-proof Senate that they've been drooling over for several months now and I do think that he will beat Toomey in the general election next year. If anyone still thinks Pennsylvania is a battleground state, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. It's a blue state, so let's just acknowledge that fact.
Secondly, I really do have to wonder how this will play out for other "moderate" Republicans? Firstly, Specter's defection really makes the Maine sisters irrelevant, and in fact I think they realize it .
" 'You haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words about how [the GOP] views moderates,' said Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate. "
Uh, that's because you moderates are essentially spineless and worthless. You "moderates" are closet Democrats, so you might as well openly acknowledge that. After watching the 2008 election results and how the RINOs destroyed the Republican Party, I don't feel all that warm and fuzzy either. And Lindsay Graham, a GOP Senator, didn't make much sense either.
" 'I don't want to be a member of the Club for Growth,” said Graham. “I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.' "
Um, yeah...vibrant like, what, 2006 and 2008? Yeah, the GOP looked like a friggin' juggernaut then, didn't it? It seems your idea of center-right is to act Democrat-Lite. That's not center-right. It's not even center. It's left, so just admit it.
" 'I happened to win with 74 percent of the vote in a blue-collar state, but no one asked me, 'How did you do it?'” [Snowe] said. “Seems to me that would have been the first question that would have come from the Republican Party to find out so we could avoid further losses.' "
Hey Olympia? You won because Maine is a northeastern liberal state and elects liberals. That's why no one asks you. When you vote like a Democrat for big budgets and even bigger government, then conservatives could care less how you won. You whored yourself out to the left, end of story. But I'll let you in on a little secret, ok Ms. Snowe? We'll avoid further losses if the GOP grows a spine, gets a clear message to counter the leftist-Democrats and actually practices what it preaches. See, pretty simple, wasn't it?
Senator Snowe is indeed worried, as is her state counterpart Susan Collins (I don't think I'm too far off here). And they have good reason to be. With Specter's defection, their bargaining power just diminished considerably. With Franken coming in and Specter basically playing along, the Democrats will have little need of courting these two in upcoming votes. Will the Maine sisters continue to vote Democrat? Probably, since their state is pretty liberal and they have to represent them. But they won't be getting any future goodies (well, at least not as much) that they probably got when they voted for the other Democratic packages earlier in the year (I'm really interested to see how Maine benefited from their votes).
So now the Republicans really are politically irrelevant until at least 2010. I hate to say it, but a third party built entirely around conservatives is looking better every day (which means the GOP will dissolve).
So now the RINOs really have to make a decision with regards to their "party." Either they can join in with the conservatives in at least symbolically opposing the Socialist Democratic agenda (in which case, they may regain some of their honor) or they can continue the way they have. If the former, welcome back. If the latter, then just follow Specter's lead. We conservatives don't want the RINOs. Now if only we could get those pesky Maine sisters to switch now...
"Veteran Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties Tuesday with a suddenness that seemed to stun the Senate, a moderate's defection that pushed Democrats to within a vote of the 60 needed to overcome filibusters and enact President Barack Obama's top legislative priorities."
This was hardly stunning. Specter has been essentially liberal for a long time. This move simply changes Specter from a pseudo-Democrat to an actual one. And with Franken gaining the Minnesota Senate seat with near certainty, it will give the Democrats the magical 60 votes needed to "bust" the filibuster. This will also unfortunately make the Republican Party essentially irrelevant until at least late next year. I certainly hope the RINOs are satisfied now.
"Specter, 79 and seeking a sixth term in 2010, conceded bluntly that his chances of winning a Pennsylvania Republican primary next year were bleak in a party grown increasingly conservative. But he cast his decision as one of principle, rather than fueled by political ambition as spurned GOP leaders alleged."
Yeah, and Specter is pretty much full of shit. His entire career has been one of political ambition. This is the jackass who gave us the "magic bullet" theory when JFK was assassinated. This guy was a Democrat until he switched parties in 1965 (running for the attorney general). Interestingly enough, he switched because he was about to lose in the Democratic primary. Specter has always been a total douchebag and this pretty much reinforces it. Of course he's doing it to stay in power! He's 79 years old, what else can he do with his life?
"Specter called the White House on Tuesday to notify Obama of his decision to switch. The president called back moments later, according to spokesman Robert Gibbs, to say the Democratic Party was 'thrilled to have you.'
Several officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said discussions of a possible switch had reached into the White House in recent days, although Gibbs said he had no details."
From what I read in other articles, VP 'Hoof in Mouth' Biden had a major hand in bringing Specter over. The idea of Obama "calling back" reinforces that, since if Specter called the White House, don't you think the President would talk to him? Again, this goes against the 'bolt from the blue' statement uttered elsewhere in this article. And why wouldn't Obama be thrilled to have Specter? After all, he just gave Obama a literal filibuster instead of one in the hands of a few RINOs.
"At his news conference, Specter grew animated as he blamed conservatives for helping deliver control of the Senate to Democrats in 2006, making it impossible to confirm numerous judicial appointees of former president George W. Bush.
"They don't make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party. I don't understand it, but that's what they said," he added."
Huh? How is it that conservatives are to blame? The RINOs have been running this party for almost a decade now. They pushed their candidates in 2004, 2006 and 2008. And what was the outcome? A party that had no message whatsoever, increased spending and a party that was essentially Democrat-Lite. And we're to blame? Please Arlen, do a better job of covering your ass.
"Ironically, Specter had spoken recently about the importance of a strong Republican presence in the Senate.
'If we lose my seat they have 60 Democrats, they will pass card check, you will have the Obama tax increases, they will carry out his big spending plans. So the 41st Republican, whose name is Arlen Specter, is vital to stopping tax increases, passage of card check and the Obama big spending plans.' "
So... let me get this straight. To deny the Democrats the magical 60th Senate seat, you decided to head over and become the 60th seat. Wow, Arlen, you really are a fucking numbnut, if you actually believe anything you say, which is doubtful. After all, you did go along with the big spending plans and you are for the budget (i.e. tax increases) so how is keeping you as a RINO Republican going to change that? However, I will say that you answered your own question by speaking of yourself in the third-person by somehow being the savior of the GOP. So it's not really about the Republicans so much as really helping yourself (wow, talk about narcissism).
Well, I have to admit I have mixed feelings about this move. To be honest, Specter was essentially a Democrat and he will continue to vote that way in the future. Therefore, I don't believe that this is as big a loss as many might fear. Yes, this gives the Democrats the filibuster-proof Senate that they've been drooling over for several months now and I do think that he will beat Toomey in the general election next year. If anyone still thinks Pennsylvania is a battleground state, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. It's a blue state, so let's just acknowledge that fact.
Secondly, I really do have to wonder how this will play out for other "moderate" Republicans? Firstly, Specter's defection really makes the Maine sisters irrelevant, and in fact I think they realize it .
" 'You haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words about how [the GOP] views moderates,' said Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate. "
Uh, that's because you moderates are essentially spineless and worthless. You "moderates" are closet Democrats, so you might as well openly acknowledge that. After watching the 2008 election results and how the RINOs destroyed the Republican Party, I don't feel all that warm and fuzzy either. And Lindsay Graham, a GOP Senator, didn't make much sense either.
" 'I don't want to be a member of the Club for Growth,” said Graham. “I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.' "
Um, yeah...vibrant like, what, 2006 and 2008? Yeah, the GOP looked like a friggin' juggernaut then, didn't it? It seems your idea of center-right is to act Democrat-Lite. That's not center-right. It's not even center. It's left, so just admit it.
" 'I happened to win with 74 percent of the vote in a blue-collar state, but no one asked me, 'How did you do it?'” [Snowe] said. “Seems to me that would have been the first question that would have come from the Republican Party to find out so we could avoid further losses.' "
Hey Olympia? You won because Maine is a northeastern liberal state and elects liberals. That's why no one asks you. When you vote like a Democrat for big budgets and even bigger government, then conservatives could care less how you won. You whored yourself out to the left, end of story. But I'll let you in on a little secret, ok Ms. Snowe? We'll avoid further losses if the GOP grows a spine, gets a clear message to counter the leftist-Democrats and actually practices what it preaches. See, pretty simple, wasn't it?
Senator Snowe is indeed worried, as is her state counterpart Susan Collins (I don't think I'm too far off here). And they have good reason to be. With Specter's defection, their bargaining power just diminished considerably. With Franken coming in and Specter basically playing along, the Democrats will have little need of courting these two in upcoming votes. Will the Maine sisters continue to vote Democrat? Probably, since their state is pretty liberal and they have to represent them. But they won't be getting any future goodies (well, at least not as much) that they probably got when they voted for the other Democratic packages earlier in the year (I'm really interested to see how Maine benefited from their votes).
So now the Republicans really are politically irrelevant until at least 2010. I hate to say it, but a third party built entirely around conservatives is looking better every day (which means the GOP will dissolve).
So now the RINOs really have to make a decision with regards to their "party." Either they can join in with the conservatives in at least symbolically opposing the Socialist Democratic agenda (in which case, they may regain some of their honor) or they can continue the way they have. If the former, welcome back. If the latter, then just follow Specter's lead. We conservatives don't want the RINOs. Now if only we could get those pesky Maine sisters to switch now...
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
While brown-nosing all Muslim extremists, Obama declares that those who disagree with him are a national security threat
The road to tyranny can be slow or quick. In this country, it's starting slow, but will undoubtedly gain momentum as the Messiah's first term continues. I don't even want to think about what will happen if this guy gets re-elected. However, I'd bet money that some congressperson after 2012 will probably think it's a swell idea if we got rid of those pesky presidential term-limits...
I have stated before that I believe this president will do anything to stay in power and that includes overstepping the boundaries of the Constitution. The bill for an expanded "youth corps" has essentially passed through Congress. Among other things in this bill, the youth corps also includes a shadowy "National Service Reserve Corps" whose only function is to deal with national emergencies or crisises (which is generally the territory of the National Guard).
And apparently, he has taken the next step. The Department of Homeland Security has issued this cute little report on "right wing extremists."
"The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,
but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about
several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first
African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and
recruitment."
Now bear in mind that this Office has no actual evidence that anything will happen. Of course, Hitler and the Nazis kinda thought the same thing about the Jews. Although the report initially specifies white supremists and anti-government groups (probably militia), there is a disturbing footnote at the bottom of page 2 attached to these examples.
"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
Ok, I can understand the hate-oriented stuff, but antigovernment? So the idea that I'd like to see a reduced federal government suddenly makes me a terrorist? This is a key question because the note puts an "or" instead of an "and". You may be a terrorist if you are rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority OR rejecting government authority entirely. I love the last sentence. I admit that the abortion issue isn't really high on my list of priorities, but you're telling me that I can't say anything about an illegal immigration problem without being connected to terrorism? And the left said Bush Jr. was bad???
"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans
likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,
as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for
violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and
stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation
of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary
concern to law enforcement."
Newsflash, people are buying tons of guns because they're afraid that Obama will eliminate the right to bear arms. They're also afraid that if the country does go south (literally and figuratively), they have some way of protecting themselves. So all of a sudden, these people are now right-wing extremists and terrorists.
"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are
attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to
boost their violent capabilities."
And of course since the military isn't particularly flipped about the Messiah, they're thrown into the mix as well. After all, when one who has served the country honorably through military service, he/she can look forward to being seen as a potential terrorist. Who said the left has reneged on their Vietnam-era hatred of the military? After all, they're just "baby-killers" waiting to overthrow the government, right? Of course, if you look at the fine print of the Obama Youth act, there are several references to wanting "veterans" in the NSRC. Kinda intriguing...
"DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are
driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity.
Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small
terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of
an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a
driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization."
Now, is this "rightwing extremist recruitment" meaning (partly, of course) increased enrollment in the Republican Party? If so, I'm guilty as charged. I liked the touch about the "historical election" of an African American president. Did MSNBC write some of this report? The next paragraph is fun.
" A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing
extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction
reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment
conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a
Jewish-controlled “one world government."
Ah yes, one incident and it's all a vast right-wing conspiracy. Of course, the report is strangely silent about the five cops who were killed by an African American in Oakland several days previously. I believe there was a march supporting the killer there. But apparently, the Chosen One missed that headline...
"Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception
that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to
work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that
these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico."
I have stated before that I believe this president will do anything to stay in power and that includes overstepping the boundaries of the Constitution. The bill for an expanded "youth corps" has essentially passed through Congress. Among other things in this bill, the youth corps also includes a shadowy "National Service Reserve Corps" whose only function is to deal with national emergencies or crisises (which is generally the territory of the National Guard).
And apparently, he has taken the next step. The Department of Homeland Security has issued this cute little report on "right wing extremists."
"The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,
but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about
several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first
African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and
recruitment."
Now bear in mind that this Office has no actual evidence that anything will happen. Of course, Hitler and the Nazis kinda thought the same thing about the Jews. Although the report initially specifies white supremists and anti-government groups (probably militia), there is a disturbing footnote at the bottom of page 2 attached to these examples.
"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
Ok, I can understand the hate-oriented stuff, but antigovernment? So the idea that I'd like to see a reduced federal government suddenly makes me a terrorist? This is a key question because the note puts an "or" instead of an "and". You may be a terrorist if you are rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority OR rejecting government authority entirely. I love the last sentence. I admit that the abortion issue isn't really high on my list of priorities, but you're telling me that I can't say anything about an illegal immigration problem without being connected to terrorism? And the left said Bush Jr. was bad???
"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans
likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,
as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for
violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and
stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation
of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary
concern to law enforcement."
Newsflash, people are buying tons of guns because they're afraid that Obama will eliminate the right to bear arms. They're also afraid that if the country does go south (literally and figuratively), they have some way of protecting themselves. So all of a sudden, these people are now right-wing extremists and terrorists.
"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are
attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to
boost their violent capabilities."
And of course since the military isn't particularly flipped about the Messiah, they're thrown into the mix as well. After all, when one who has served the country honorably through military service, he/she can look forward to being seen as a potential terrorist. Who said the left has reneged on their Vietnam-era hatred of the military? After all, they're just "baby-killers" waiting to overthrow the government, right? Of course, if you look at the fine print of the Obama Youth act, there are several references to wanting "veterans" in the NSRC. Kinda intriguing...
"DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are
driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity.
Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small
terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of
an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a
driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization."
Now, is this "rightwing extremist recruitment" meaning (partly, of course) increased enrollment in the Republican Party? If so, I'm guilty as charged. I liked the touch about the "historical election" of an African American president. Did MSNBC write some of this report? The next paragraph is fun.
" A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing
extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction
reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment
conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a
Jewish-controlled “one world government."
Ah yes, one incident and it's all a vast right-wing conspiracy. Of course, the report is strangely silent about the five cops who were killed by an African American in Oakland several days previously. I believe there was a march supporting the killer there. But apparently, the Chosen One missed that headline...
"Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception
that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to
work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that
these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico."
Wow, so not being flipped about illegal immigrants pouring over our southern border constitutes extremism? I guess I'm guilty as charged there. Do I hate Mexicans? Nope. Do I ask that they not turn this country into a Greater Mexico, with all of the problems inherent in their politics and society? Yes. Sorry, that's not racism.
"DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations have
observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.
— (U) In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and
explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested had
discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.
— (U) A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after
communicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to kill immigrants
crossing into the United States."
Ok, while this is serious stuff, how about the Americans who are killed by Mexicans? They're saying it doesn't happen? There's incidents along the border virtually every day that most Americans don't even hear about. How about La Raza, whose Hispanic organization constantly calls for a militant takeover of the Southwest by their brethren? I hear crickets chirping...
" Rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and
have recently focused on themes such as the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability
to China and India, Russia’s control of energy resources and use of these to
pressure other countries, and China’s investment in U.S. real estate and
corporations as a part of subversion strategy."
Well, tell me none of that is the truth. We have lost a large amount of manufacturing capability in this country. That's a reality that we'll have to deal with. Our unionized industries cannot compete against global competitors. I hardly think voicing that truth is "extremist." As far as Russia is concerned, I'm not as concerned about their energy sources as I am, say, the Middle East. Russia lives or dies on its energy industry. Right now, they're economy is crippled because of low oil prices. As for China, they are investing in real estate. They hold a royal shitload of our government and personal debt. If they decide to cash in, it would ruin us since we don't have the money to pay it back. We're sinking further and further into debt and sooner or later the party will end. That's not extremism, that's pragmatism.
Of course I "bemoan" a lack of American stature. Being a superpower has enabled us to live the good life for so many years. We don't have the luxury of Europe in having someone else to protect us while we live high on the hog. Our economic strength has enabled us (with backing of our military) to wield tremendous influence globally to the point where American culture is world reknown. The Department of Homeland Security seriously thinks that me voicing this absolute fact makes me an extremist? Hey Janet, listen up! Once we lose our superpower status, China will take over in that status, whether we like it or not! Simply putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly does not change that fact one iota. Without our economic power, we will not influence anyone. And without economic power, we will not be able to field the type of powerful military that we've enjoyed for over 60 years. China will call the shots the way it wants to and I can guarantee you that we won't like some of those calls. It's not extremist, it's called the future. Get used to it. Yeah, it irritates me.
The rest of it deals with white supremist groups. While I have no love for those groups I do wonder why only they are being targeted. So, once again, only whites are capable of violent behavior? Everyone else is a victim. Newsflash, that attitude will unfortunately give these idiots more rhetorical ammunition to use to attract whites. To conclude, I sometimes wonder if the Obama administration is actually trying to provoke a response from some of these people.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Yup, Obama's going to yank the troops out of Iraq: next up, Middle East in flames
Well, it's not like we didn't know this was going to happen. He practically screamed it constantly during his campaign.
"Flying unannounced into a still-dangerous war zone, President Barack Obama told U.S. troops and Iraqi officials alike Tuesday it is time to phase out America's combat role in a conflict he opposed as a candidate and has vowed to end as commander in chief.
With violence diminished but hardly disappearing — a car bomb killed eight Iraqis just hours before Obama's arrival — the president met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and emphasized that "we strongly support" steps to unite political factions, including integrating minority Sunnis into the government and security forces."
Bear in mind that he went there to talk to troops after announcing some pretty hefty cuts in the military budget. Talk about first class...
The bombings alone show that Iraq is mostly won, but hardly subdued. We're leaving too early...
"Iraqis 'need to take responsibility for their own country,"'Obama told hundreds of cheering soldiers gathered in an ornate, marble palace near Saddam Hussein's former seat of power.
'You have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country. That is an extraordinary achievement,' he told some 600 troops, saluting their efforts during six years of American fighting and losses."
While I totally agree that Iraqis need to take responsibility for their country, the question is whether they're ready to do it or not. It's a fledgling democracy. It could be a success or it could dissolve in a bloody civil war. I'd rather that it be concrete and not a fleeting 'opportunity.' It won't be any kind of achievement if Iraq collapses into civil war. What it will be is a waste of American lives for absolutely nothing. I don't understand why liberals are so clueless on this.
Have we made major strides in the last year and a half in Iraq? Absolutely. However, Iraq at this point could be likened to a brittle, fragile crystal. If rapped hard enough, it'll shatter into hundreds of pieces. A withdrawal from Iraq will give a green light to the Iranians, who have been watching with bated breath just across the border. They're patiently waiting for us to leave and they'll go right back to interfering with Iraqi internal politics. The Sunnis, who are still very much distrustful of the Kurds and Shiites, will watch warily for any signs of revenge.
Personally, I think it'll happen. It is entirely possible that the Kurds will break away, causing problems for not only Iraq, but also Iran and Turkey, which have significant minorities of Kurds. The Shiites will undoubtedly be supported by the Iranians if they decide to take over the government. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have already said that they would support the Sunnis in a civil war. This has the potential to get out of control very quickly.
"Flying unannounced into a still-dangerous war zone, President Barack Obama told U.S. troops and Iraqi officials alike Tuesday it is time to phase out America's combat role in a conflict he opposed as a candidate and has vowed to end as commander in chief.
With violence diminished but hardly disappearing — a car bomb killed eight Iraqis just hours before Obama's arrival — the president met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and emphasized that "we strongly support" steps to unite political factions, including integrating minority Sunnis into the government and security forces."
Bear in mind that he went there to talk to troops after announcing some pretty hefty cuts in the military budget. Talk about first class...
The bombings alone show that Iraq is mostly won, but hardly subdued. We're leaving too early...
"Iraqis 'need to take responsibility for their own country,"'Obama told hundreds of cheering soldiers gathered in an ornate, marble palace near Saddam Hussein's former seat of power.
'You have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country. That is an extraordinary achievement,' he told some 600 troops, saluting their efforts during six years of American fighting and losses."
While I totally agree that Iraqis need to take responsibility for their country, the question is whether they're ready to do it or not. It's a fledgling democracy. It could be a success or it could dissolve in a bloody civil war. I'd rather that it be concrete and not a fleeting 'opportunity.' It won't be any kind of achievement if Iraq collapses into civil war. What it will be is a waste of American lives for absolutely nothing. I don't understand why liberals are so clueless on this.
Have we made major strides in the last year and a half in Iraq? Absolutely. However, Iraq at this point could be likened to a brittle, fragile crystal. If rapped hard enough, it'll shatter into hundreds of pieces. A withdrawal from Iraq will give a green light to the Iranians, who have been watching with bated breath just across the border. They're patiently waiting for us to leave and they'll go right back to interfering with Iraqi internal politics. The Sunnis, who are still very much distrustful of the Kurds and Shiites, will watch warily for any signs of revenge.
Personally, I think it'll happen. It is entirely possible that the Kurds will break away, causing problems for not only Iraq, but also Iran and Turkey, which have significant minorities of Kurds. The Shiites will undoubtedly be supported by the Iranians if they decide to take over the government. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have already said that they would support the Sunnis in a civil war. This has the potential to get out of control very quickly.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Obama: we should just get rid of nukes...yeah...just get rid of them...or something...
While I'm not a fan of nuclear weapons (well, really, who is? Except for the nutjobs who actually want to use them...), this is pretty dumb.
"Declaring the future of mankind at stake, President Barack Obama on Sunday said all nations must strive to rid the world of nuclear arms and that the U.S. had a "moral responsibility" to lead because no other country has used one."
Once again, the Messiah declares that us Americans are pieces of shit and he lays the guilt trip pretty hard. Yeah, it would be nice if all the countries in the world just got rid of them, but it's not realistic. I mean, how would Iran create it's "sea of fire" if it ended its nuclear quest? They sure couldn't do it with conventional weapons.
What pisses me off is that the Dear Leader made it sound like we just woke up one day and decided to drop atomic bombs on Japan. I mean, I could just picture President Truman sitting in the Oval Office with a dartboard with a number of countries names on it. He throws the dart and it magically lands on Japan.
Unfortunately, schools do not teach history very well (if at all) anymore. Therefore they neglected to mention that Japan started the war by launching a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor at the end of 1941 that killed thousands of American servicemen. However, by late 1945, American military casualties were starting to mount and with the defeat of Germany, many wanted the war to end. The battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa didn't help in this respect. Although they were both American victories and they enabled the Air Force to get into closer and closer range of Japan with the bombers, it also cost tens of thousands of American lives as well as hundreds of thousands of Japanese. To put it in perspective, the garrison at Iwo Jima was almost 23,000. How many willingly surrendered? A little over a thousand. The Americans committed 110,000 men to this battle and over 25,000 were casualties (over 6800 dead). Okinawa was far worse. Over a half-million Americans participated in the invasion, and over 50,000 were casualties (over 12,500 dead). Out of a garrison of 140,000 Japanese, only 10,000 were captured. Perhaps another 100,000 Japanese civilians died as well.
American commanders figured that if the Japanese were willing to lose so many in the outer islands surrounding Japan, then what would the resistance be like if the Allies actually invaded the heartland itself? Well, the Allies had a plan to invade Kyushu, south of Honshu. The southern part of the island, once secured, would have become essentially a massive Allied airbase. This operation would have been called Olympic. The second part, Coronet, would have mounted the actual invasion of Honshu itself.
While this was going on, the Americans built two atomic bombs. They were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and we all know what the results were. Japan surrendered shortly after.
However, what if we decided not to use the bombs? Well, post-war, American officers were able to come ashore at Kyushu to see what the defenses looked like. What they saw absolutely horrified them. The Japanese military had built a vast network of bunkers, entrenchments and hidden airfields that had thousands of kamikaze planes. The Japanese anticipated our invasion and built massive defenses to thwart it. If we had invaded, there is no doubt that American casualties would have run into the hundreds of thousands (this for just Olympic). Operation Coronet would have consumed an even greater amount of Allied lives.
For the Japanese, however, it would have been much worse. Literally millions (yes, I mean plural) would have been killed in the final assault. The Japanese High Command had no intention of surrendering, and was quite willing to annhilate Japan to avoid that.
The Allied commanders were not enthusiastic with Olympic, so they had a backup plan. They would blockade Japan into submission with their navy. Although relatively few Americans would have lost their lives in this (there would have certainly been kamikaze attacks), it would have probably destroyed Japan. The Japanese Islands had (and still have) few natural resources, and a blockade would have slowly starved tens of millions of Japanese civilians to death.
So weighed against those options, we decided to drop the bombs and get it over with. Over 220,000 Japanese died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, it was horrible. But was it more horrible than the options that were available at the time? I'd have to say no. It's real easy to play Monday morning quarterback.
"A North Korean rocket launch upstaged Obama's idealistic call to action, delivered in the capital of the Czech Republic, a former satellite of the Soviet Union. But Obama dismissed those who say the spread of nuclear weapons, 'the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War,' cannot be checked. "This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime,'he told a cheering crowd of more than 20,000 in the historic square outside the Prague Castle gates. We 'must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, 'Yes, we can.' "
Ah, so wishful thinking is going to trump reality? Wow, talk about arrogance (he dismisses us). So who's going to make sure that every nuke is destroyed? Who's going to make sure no one else will build them? Who's going to tell North Korea and Iran not to build them? These are valid questions that the Messiah needs to address. I suppose he'll just get rid of them with his sheer force of personality.
"Few experts think it's possible to completely eradicate nuclear weapons, and many say it wouldn't be a good idea even if it could be done. Even backward nations such as North Korea have shown they can develop bombs, given enough time."
That's because you can't get rid of all of them. You can't uninvent science. The knowledge is out there and someone who wants it bad enough will try to make one.
"But a program to drastically cut the world atomic arsenal carries support from scientists and lions of the foreign policy world. Obama embraced that step as his first goal and chose as the venue for his address a nation that peacefully threw off communism and helped topple the Soviet Union, despite its nuclear power."
Uh, the Russians, for all their ideological nonsense, were quite rational. They fought two world wars in the 20th century and lost something like over 50 million killed in both of them. They didn't want a repeat of that. You honestly think they'd lob nukes in order to keep Czechoslovakia? They left the former Warsaw Pact countries because they were gutted internally. They lost the will to keep their empire together.
"But he said his own country, with its huge arsenal and its history using two atomic bombs against Japan in 1945, had to lead the world. He said the U.S. has a "moral responsibility" to start taking steps now. "
Like I said above. Why do we alone have the moral responsibility? Doesn't Russia have responsibilities? Doesn't China? Wow, talk about being a arrogant, guilt-tripping piece of shit.
" 'To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year,' he promised."
Why Russia? Shouldn't our Dear Leader be more concerned with other countries developing nukes?
"The nuclear-free cause is more potent in Europe than in the United States, where even Democratic politicians such as Obama must avoid being labeled as soft or naive if they endorse it. Still, Obama said he would resubmit a proposed Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification. The pact was signed by President Bill Clinton but rejected by the Senate in 1999."
That's because the Senate was controlled by Republicans then. Maybe this time it'll work for the Unicorn in Chief. I doubt the Democrats could be that stupid, could they?
"While espousing long-term goals, Obama took care to promise that America would not lower its defenses while others are pursuing a nuclear threat. He warned both North Korea, which has tested a nuclear weapon, and Iran, which the West says is developing one, that the world was against them."
I'm pretty sure the North Koreans and Iranians understand that the world is against them (at least a good portion is). So what's his point? Either he keeps our defenses up and he deep-sixes his idea for a nuke free world, or he gets rid of nukes and...well he isn't get rid of nukes, so that point is moot...wow, talk about rhetorical nonsense.
"Obama gave his most unequivocal pledge yet to proceed with building a missile defense system in Europe, so long as Iran pursues nuclear weapons, a charge it denies. That shield is to be based in the Czech Republic and Poland. Those countries are on Russia's doorstep, and the missile shield has contributed to a significant decline in U.S.-Russia relations."
Ok, build it or don't build it, make up your mind. One does not gain respect with constant indecision...
"In the interest of resetting ties with Moscow, Obama previously had appeared to soft-pedal his support for the Bush-era shield proposal. But he adopted a different tone in Prague.
'As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven,' Obama said, earning cheers from the crowd."
Yay. But hey, we're in the Czech Republic, not Russia. Those pesky Russians won't listen in outside their country...we sure done fooled them...yeehaw...
"Hours before the address, an aide awoke Obama in his hotel room to tell him that North Korea had make good on its pledge to launch a long-range rocket. By lunchtime, the president had addressed it publicly nearly half a dozen times."
But what is he going to do about it? With this guy, talk is not only cheap but damn near free...
" 'Rules must be binding," he said. 'Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."
'Now is the time for a strong international response,' he said."
In other words, we'll do nothing. He's right when he says that rules are binding, violations should be punished. Words must mean something? Don't they usually? That's what words do: they describe. His teleprompter must have gone off for a split second there. But now is the time for a strong international response...so when was the last time that happened? Obama's trying to talk a lot of shit, but when push comes to shove, he hides behind the "mighty" UN.
"After the speech and a round of private meetings with foreign leaders, Obama arrived in Turkey, the final stop of his trip."
Being a muslim country, I'm sure he saved the best for last...
"On the broader anti-nuclear issue, more than 140 nations have ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. But 44 states that possess nuclear technology need to both sign and ratify it before it can take effect and only 35 have do so. The United States is among the holdouts, along with China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan."
Yeah, look at that list and ponder...But of course it's exclusively our fault for not signing it because...come on, say it with me...WE'RE AMERICANS...and we should always be ridden with guilt.
"Ratification was one of several "concrete steps" Obama outlined as necessary to move toward a nuclear-free world. He also called for reducing the role of nuclear weapons in American national security strategy and seeking a new treaty to end the production of fissile materials used in nuclear weapons. "
Yeah, why don't we wish the moon was made of cheese while we're at it? Well Messiah, what are you waiting for? Use your towering oratory skills to ratify that bad boy so we can't be guilty anymore. As for reducing the role of nukes in our security, didn't he mention that he wasn't going to lower our defenses? So which one is it? I'll bet on him gutting our national security, thanks...
"Obama said the U.S. will seek to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation treaty by providing more resources and authority for international inspections and mandating "real and immediate consequences" for countries that violate the treaty. "
Like what? Draw a line in the sand, watch them step over it and draw another line? And another? And another? And another?...BTW, his oratory skills (the one thing he has in overwhelming abundance) should not be considered resources.
I really want to see the details in this plan...
"He offered few details of how he would accomplish his larger goal and acknowledged that'"in a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.' "
Yes, well, it's all in the details, isn't it? It's hardly a strange turn of history. The threat of global nuclear war was at its high point during the Cold War (Soviet Union vs. US). We both had enough to ensure annhilation if one or the other started it. When the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of the 80's, our conventional military power was unmatched. In order to equalize it, other countries have looked to nuclear weapons to prevent us from going after them. It's not strange, it's quite natural (even though it's frightening).
Looks like more of the same foreign policy bullshit coming from the Teleprompter in Chief. I shudder to think what will happen when someone actually does something concrete against us.
"Declaring the future of mankind at stake, President Barack Obama on Sunday said all nations must strive to rid the world of nuclear arms and that the U.S. had a "moral responsibility" to lead because no other country has used one."
Once again, the Messiah declares that us Americans are pieces of shit and he lays the guilt trip pretty hard. Yeah, it would be nice if all the countries in the world just got rid of them, but it's not realistic. I mean, how would Iran create it's "sea of fire" if it ended its nuclear quest? They sure couldn't do it with conventional weapons.
What pisses me off is that the Dear Leader made it sound like we just woke up one day and decided to drop atomic bombs on Japan. I mean, I could just picture President Truman sitting in the Oval Office with a dartboard with a number of countries names on it. He throws the dart and it magically lands on Japan.
Unfortunately, schools do not teach history very well (if at all) anymore. Therefore they neglected to mention that Japan started the war by launching a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor at the end of 1941 that killed thousands of American servicemen. However, by late 1945, American military casualties were starting to mount and with the defeat of Germany, many wanted the war to end. The battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa didn't help in this respect. Although they were both American victories and they enabled the Air Force to get into closer and closer range of Japan with the bombers, it also cost tens of thousands of American lives as well as hundreds of thousands of Japanese. To put it in perspective, the garrison at Iwo Jima was almost 23,000. How many willingly surrendered? A little over a thousand. The Americans committed 110,000 men to this battle and over 25,000 were casualties (over 6800 dead). Okinawa was far worse. Over a half-million Americans participated in the invasion, and over 50,000 were casualties (over 12,500 dead). Out of a garrison of 140,000 Japanese, only 10,000 were captured. Perhaps another 100,000 Japanese civilians died as well.
American commanders figured that if the Japanese were willing to lose so many in the outer islands surrounding Japan, then what would the resistance be like if the Allies actually invaded the heartland itself? Well, the Allies had a plan to invade Kyushu, south of Honshu. The southern part of the island, once secured, would have become essentially a massive Allied airbase. This operation would have been called Olympic. The second part, Coronet, would have mounted the actual invasion of Honshu itself.
While this was going on, the Americans built two atomic bombs. They were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and we all know what the results were. Japan surrendered shortly after.
However, what if we decided not to use the bombs? Well, post-war, American officers were able to come ashore at Kyushu to see what the defenses looked like. What they saw absolutely horrified them. The Japanese military had built a vast network of bunkers, entrenchments and hidden airfields that had thousands of kamikaze planes. The Japanese anticipated our invasion and built massive defenses to thwart it. If we had invaded, there is no doubt that American casualties would have run into the hundreds of thousands (this for just Olympic). Operation Coronet would have consumed an even greater amount of Allied lives.
For the Japanese, however, it would have been much worse. Literally millions (yes, I mean plural) would have been killed in the final assault. The Japanese High Command had no intention of surrendering, and was quite willing to annhilate Japan to avoid that.
The Allied commanders were not enthusiastic with Olympic, so they had a backup plan. They would blockade Japan into submission with their navy. Although relatively few Americans would have lost their lives in this (there would have certainly been kamikaze attacks), it would have probably destroyed Japan. The Japanese Islands had (and still have) few natural resources, and a blockade would have slowly starved tens of millions of Japanese civilians to death.
So weighed against those options, we decided to drop the bombs and get it over with. Over 220,000 Japanese died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, it was horrible. But was it more horrible than the options that were available at the time? I'd have to say no. It's real easy to play Monday morning quarterback.
"A North Korean rocket launch upstaged Obama's idealistic call to action, delivered in the capital of the Czech Republic, a former satellite of the Soviet Union. But Obama dismissed those who say the spread of nuclear weapons, 'the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War,' cannot be checked. "This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime,'he told a cheering crowd of more than 20,000 in the historic square outside the Prague Castle gates. We 'must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, 'Yes, we can.' "
Ah, so wishful thinking is going to trump reality? Wow, talk about arrogance (he dismisses us). So who's going to make sure that every nuke is destroyed? Who's going to make sure no one else will build them? Who's going to tell North Korea and Iran not to build them? These are valid questions that the Messiah needs to address. I suppose he'll just get rid of them with his sheer force of personality.
"Few experts think it's possible to completely eradicate nuclear weapons, and many say it wouldn't be a good idea even if it could be done. Even backward nations such as North Korea have shown they can develop bombs, given enough time."
That's because you can't get rid of all of them. You can't uninvent science. The knowledge is out there and someone who wants it bad enough will try to make one.
"But a program to drastically cut the world atomic arsenal carries support from scientists and lions of the foreign policy world. Obama embraced that step as his first goal and chose as the venue for his address a nation that peacefully threw off communism and helped topple the Soviet Union, despite its nuclear power."
Uh, the Russians, for all their ideological nonsense, were quite rational. They fought two world wars in the 20th century and lost something like over 50 million killed in both of them. They didn't want a repeat of that. You honestly think they'd lob nukes in order to keep Czechoslovakia? They left the former Warsaw Pact countries because they were gutted internally. They lost the will to keep their empire together.
"But he said his own country, with its huge arsenal and its history using two atomic bombs against Japan in 1945, had to lead the world. He said the U.S. has a "moral responsibility" to start taking steps now. "
Like I said above. Why do we alone have the moral responsibility? Doesn't Russia have responsibilities? Doesn't China? Wow, talk about being a arrogant, guilt-tripping piece of shit.
" 'To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year,' he promised."
Why Russia? Shouldn't our Dear Leader be more concerned with other countries developing nukes?
"The nuclear-free cause is more potent in Europe than in the United States, where even Democratic politicians such as Obama must avoid being labeled as soft or naive if they endorse it. Still, Obama said he would resubmit a proposed Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification. The pact was signed by President Bill Clinton but rejected by the Senate in 1999."
That's because the Senate was controlled by Republicans then. Maybe this time it'll work for the Unicorn in Chief. I doubt the Democrats could be that stupid, could they?
"While espousing long-term goals, Obama took care to promise that America would not lower its defenses while others are pursuing a nuclear threat. He warned both North Korea, which has tested a nuclear weapon, and Iran, which the West says is developing one, that the world was against them."
I'm pretty sure the North Koreans and Iranians understand that the world is against them (at least a good portion is). So what's his point? Either he keeps our defenses up and he deep-sixes his idea for a nuke free world, or he gets rid of nukes and...well he isn't get rid of nukes, so that point is moot...wow, talk about rhetorical nonsense.
"Obama gave his most unequivocal pledge yet to proceed with building a missile defense system in Europe, so long as Iran pursues nuclear weapons, a charge it denies. That shield is to be based in the Czech Republic and Poland. Those countries are on Russia's doorstep, and the missile shield has contributed to a significant decline in U.S.-Russia relations."
Ok, build it or don't build it, make up your mind. One does not gain respect with constant indecision...
"In the interest of resetting ties with Moscow, Obama previously had appeared to soft-pedal his support for the Bush-era shield proposal. But he adopted a different tone in Prague.
'As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven,' Obama said, earning cheers from the crowd."
Yay. But hey, we're in the Czech Republic, not Russia. Those pesky Russians won't listen in outside their country...we sure done fooled them...yeehaw...
"Hours before the address, an aide awoke Obama in his hotel room to tell him that North Korea had make good on its pledge to launch a long-range rocket. By lunchtime, the president had addressed it publicly nearly half a dozen times."
But what is he going to do about it? With this guy, talk is not only cheap but damn near free...
" 'Rules must be binding," he said. 'Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."
'Now is the time for a strong international response,' he said."
In other words, we'll do nothing. He's right when he says that rules are binding, violations should be punished. Words must mean something? Don't they usually? That's what words do: they describe. His teleprompter must have gone off for a split second there. But now is the time for a strong international response...so when was the last time that happened? Obama's trying to talk a lot of shit, but when push comes to shove, he hides behind the "mighty" UN.
"After the speech and a round of private meetings with foreign leaders, Obama arrived in Turkey, the final stop of his trip."
Being a muslim country, I'm sure he saved the best for last...
"On the broader anti-nuclear issue, more than 140 nations have ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. But 44 states that possess nuclear technology need to both sign and ratify it before it can take effect and only 35 have do so. The United States is among the holdouts, along with China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan."
Yeah, look at that list and ponder...But of course it's exclusively our fault for not signing it because...come on, say it with me...WE'RE AMERICANS...and we should always be ridden with guilt.
"Ratification was one of several "concrete steps" Obama outlined as necessary to move toward a nuclear-free world. He also called for reducing the role of nuclear weapons in American national security strategy and seeking a new treaty to end the production of fissile materials used in nuclear weapons. "
Yeah, why don't we wish the moon was made of cheese while we're at it? Well Messiah, what are you waiting for? Use your towering oratory skills to ratify that bad boy so we can't be guilty anymore. As for reducing the role of nukes in our security, didn't he mention that he wasn't going to lower our defenses? So which one is it? I'll bet on him gutting our national security, thanks...
"Obama said the U.S. will seek to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation treaty by providing more resources and authority for international inspections and mandating "real and immediate consequences" for countries that violate the treaty. "
Like what? Draw a line in the sand, watch them step over it and draw another line? And another? And another? And another?...BTW, his oratory skills (the one thing he has in overwhelming abundance) should not be considered resources.
I really want to see the details in this plan...
"He offered few details of how he would accomplish his larger goal and acknowledged that'"in a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.' "
Yes, well, it's all in the details, isn't it? It's hardly a strange turn of history. The threat of global nuclear war was at its high point during the Cold War (Soviet Union vs. US). We both had enough to ensure annhilation if one or the other started it. When the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of the 80's, our conventional military power was unmatched. In order to equalize it, other countries have looked to nuclear weapons to prevent us from going after them. It's not strange, it's quite natural (even though it's frightening).
Looks like more of the same foreign policy bullshit coming from the Teleprompter in Chief. I shudder to think what will happen when someone actually does something concrete against us.
Friday, April 3, 2009
An interesting prediction about the Republican Party
Although I don't particularly like Newt Gingrich because of some of his personal decisions, I have to say that he might be on to something.
"Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich skewered both President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush for their mishandling of the economy in a talk with students on Tuesday, but it was his warning to Republicans that raised eyebrows.
"If the Republicans can't break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012," Gingrich said at an event hosted by the College of the Ozarks in Point Lookout, Mo., TV station KY3 reported. A loss of small-government conservatives would be an enormous blow to the GOP."
Like I said before, I don't like him, but he knows what he's talking about. Up to this point, Republicans have continued to act as if being RINOs will suddenly vault them back into power. It was precisely this attitude that gradually wore away their power and then got them decisively bounced out.
"Gingrich said last month that he is seriously considering a run for president in 2012, and many pundits have said that he would be a strong contender."
Yeah good luck to that. I say to the pundits that they're full of shit. The left would have a field day with this guy if for some reason he got the nomination. His personal life alone would turn most people off (it did me). Sorry, but I don't know how you could fend off the news that he wanted to divorce one of his wives while she was recovering from surgery. I'm not saying I'm an angel, but that's pretty goddamn low. Another problem is his mouth. He just can't shut up about anything and it's one of the major reasons why the Republicans couldn't capitalize on Clinton's low ratings in the 1996 presidential campaign. He turned a lot of people off and then got knocked out in his own district.
"In a question and answer session with students, Gingrich took aim at Obama's fiscal policies, blasting the bank bailouts, stimulus package and proposed $3.5 trillion dollar federal budget as part of 'the most destructive agenda in modern history.' "
That part is true. I think long term, Americans are going to pay a steep price for "unicorn economics."
"But he also laid into Bush's free-spending ways. 'Remember, everything Obama's doing, Bush started last year,' Gingrich said. 'If you're going to talk about big spending, the mistakes of the Bush administration last year are fully as bad as the mistakes of Obama's first two, three months.' "
This is also true. I said back in September that this bailout was a horrendous idea and that it would backfire spectacularly in the future if Obama was elected. They can't exactly attack him on his spending policies when they spent like Democrats themselves for six years.
I think Gingrich is more suited to being a political analyst at this point than being a presidential candidate because he's already had his shot in politics. It's very difficult to regain credibility when you were bumped out previously.
However, I do think he's prophetic when he said that there could be a third party. I think that's what will ultimately happen. I don't think conservatives are going to wait while the RINOs keep losing (even when they're winning) political battles that further undermine Republican credibility (people such as Megan "like, oh my god" McCain and her nonsense).
In fact, I think that's what conservatives ultimately should do. Create a third party and see what happens. Now, short term, it may not look good, but they should stay the course. There needs to be a clear alternative to the current Democrat-Lite attitudes of the Republican Party, since the actual Democratic Party is swinging hard to the left. The Republican Party has lost an awful lot of credibility in the last 10 years. Maybe a new party can restore lost honor.
"Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich skewered both President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush for their mishandling of the economy in a talk with students on Tuesday, but it was his warning to Republicans that raised eyebrows.
"If the Republicans can't break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012," Gingrich said at an event hosted by the College of the Ozarks in Point Lookout, Mo., TV station KY3 reported. A loss of small-government conservatives would be an enormous blow to the GOP."
Like I said before, I don't like him, but he knows what he's talking about. Up to this point, Republicans have continued to act as if being RINOs will suddenly vault them back into power. It was precisely this attitude that gradually wore away their power and then got them decisively bounced out.
"Gingrich said last month that he is seriously considering a run for president in 2012, and many pundits have said that he would be a strong contender."
Yeah good luck to that. I say to the pundits that they're full of shit. The left would have a field day with this guy if for some reason he got the nomination. His personal life alone would turn most people off (it did me). Sorry, but I don't know how you could fend off the news that he wanted to divorce one of his wives while she was recovering from surgery. I'm not saying I'm an angel, but that's pretty goddamn low. Another problem is his mouth. He just can't shut up about anything and it's one of the major reasons why the Republicans couldn't capitalize on Clinton's low ratings in the 1996 presidential campaign. He turned a lot of people off and then got knocked out in his own district.
"In a question and answer session with students, Gingrich took aim at Obama's fiscal policies, blasting the bank bailouts, stimulus package and proposed $3.5 trillion dollar federal budget as part of 'the most destructive agenda in modern history.' "
That part is true. I think long term, Americans are going to pay a steep price for "unicorn economics."
"But he also laid into Bush's free-spending ways. 'Remember, everything Obama's doing, Bush started last year,' Gingrich said. 'If you're going to talk about big spending, the mistakes of the Bush administration last year are fully as bad as the mistakes of Obama's first two, three months.' "
This is also true. I said back in September that this bailout was a horrendous idea and that it would backfire spectacularly in the future if Obama was elected. They can't exactly attack him on his spending policies when they spent like Democrats themselves for six years.
I think Gingrich is more suited to being a political analyst at this point than being a presidential candidate because he's already had his shot in politics. It's very difficult to regain credibility when you were bumped out previously.
However, I do think he's prophetic when he said that there could be a third party. I think that's what will ultimately happen. I don't think conservatives are going to wait while the RINOs keep losing (even when they're winning) political battles that further undermine Republican credibility (people such as Megan "like, oh my god" McCain and her nonsense).
In fact, I think that's what conservatives ultimately should do. Create a third party and see what happens. Now, short term, it may not look good, but they should stay the course. There needs to be a clear alternative to the current Democrat-Lite attitudes of the Republican Party, since the actual Democratic Party is swinging hard to the left. The Republican Party has lost an awful lot of credibility in the last 10 years. Maybe a new party can restore lost honor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)