Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Hannity must not listen to Rush Limbaugh

Ealier today, Limbaugh played quotes from the Fiscal Responsibility Summit, about McCain telling Obama that he and his group had talked about Obama's 26 Marine One helicopters.

Now - Limbaugh pointed out that this fleet was ordered under Bush's watch, not Obama's....

So when Hannity talks about this in the first few minutes of his show, he makes it sound as if it was Obama who wanted this fleet, and it was only because of what McCain had said that Obama decided to cancel, or at least review, it's purchase.

So, this Marine One debacle can't be held at Obama's door. Limbaugh knows this, and made a point of saying it. Does Hannity know this, and elected to hide it? Or does he not know that it was a Bush item?

So that's a black mark against Hannity. (I hope it's not considered racist to use the term "black mark" anymore?)

But what I'm curious about is this.

The Fiscal Responsibility Summit

How many of these groups separated out to talk about Fiscal Responsiblity for a whole 2 hours, and who gave them the topics to talk about?

Because when McCain comes back and mentions that they spent two hours talking about the Marine one fleet, Obama says, "Oh, yeah, I've already had discusions about that and I don't see a need for it."

So I'm like... if this isn't an issue, why did you have McCain and his group talk about it for two hours? Why didn't you give them something relevant to discuss?

This Fiscal Responsibility meeting was apparently only a "one-shot" thing. Transcripts won't be sent out to the participants for 30 days. After that.... what's supposed to happen, I wonder?

And in the "what the hell?" department

Anger, stress may be linked to heart problems
Changes brought on by anger and other strong emotions can predict arrhythmias
Experts: Anger management is important for heart health


The study, published in the March 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, may demonstrate a link between mental stress and sudden cardiac arrest, which causes more than 400,000 deaths every year.

Oh, I dunno. I've watched TV for 40 years and many's the time I've seen an angry character on TV start to rant and rave and lose his temper, then suddenly clutch at his chest and keel over because he's had a heart attack. And I think after, oh, I dunno, maybe the first time I saw that, I realized that there was a correlation between someone being angry and someone having a heart attack.

As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that doctors and people - at least people prior to today's generation, who don't know anything - have known this for decades. That's why people have always been cautioned to watch their tempers and keep calm, because anger sends up their blood pressure and causes heart attacks!

One wonders how much these studies cost, to tell doctors what they must have already known.

Another word lost to political correctness

The black community is all in an uproar about the New York Post article that likens Obama's stimulus bill to that insane rampaging chimpanzee that had to be shot a few days ago after it attacked and practically skinned a woman.

Because it's a chimpanzee, and because Obama'a black, it was obviously racist. The paper tried to hold out for a while, but it was no good.

Then of course there's Barbara Walters, whom one black pundit said "had a teachable lesson" on The View a couple of days ago, because she didn't understand what the fuss was about. Is it because the chimpanzee was colored black? she asked. No, it's because it was just a chimpanzee, and some black kids have been verbally abused by being called monkeys, so now it can never be used to describe anyone's behavior.

So thousands of white parents, who see their kids, or their kids along with other kids, climbing in trees and acting like monkeys, will now no longer be able to yell, "You monkeys get down from there!" on the offchance that one of the kids in the tree might be black and be offended.

Friday, February 20, 2009

The Rick Santelli video

Who is responsible for the current economic crisis?

The people who were given loans that they could not afford to pay back, and who are not paying back?

Or the Democrats who forced banks to give loans to those people?

Well, I'd blame the Democrats, not only for this debacle but every other one that has turned the United States into a welfare state.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Have A Day Laborer Who Needs A Bike? Steal One

Here's the video of the loading dock of the Byrd Insitute, where Abdul Rao, who makes $380,000 a year, drives up with his day laborer. They get out, look at two bikes leaning against a railing - both of them unlocked - takes one and leaves the other.

Now, I admit. If I see a bike lying on its side on the side of the road, I assume it's been stolen and abandoned. 90% of the time, that's the case. (I live in an upper middle class neighborhood, and if a bike isn't locked, it's gone.)

However, a bike propped against a railing? First off, of course it's stupid to leave a bike unlocked... but apparently at least two people did it! Is this loading dock known as a place where people abandon their bikes?

But, if you read the article, Rao said he was going to bring the bike back (and indeed did so) - so obviously he didn't think the bike was abandoned.

The thing is, Rao makes $380,000 a year. If his day laborer needs a bike, why not just buy him one for $100 or so! Instead of obviously going scavenging for a bike!


Of course, people try to make political hay out of this. Most people who teach and work for Institutes of higher learning are Democrats, and one could say that this is the Democratic mindset in action. You make a lot of money, you've got a day laborer who needs a bike. Dont' spend your money. Spread the wealth around - take a bike from someone else.

Republicans...cant see their ideology of standing on your own two feet and earning the money to buy your own possessions permitting this. Of course there are people who vote Republican who are criminals. Indeed, there are plenty of Republican politicans who are criminals - my belief is that all politicians in either party are crooks - but the ideology of the party itself would look down upon this. Private property is private property.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

I am so sick of the term, "single" mother

Well, the "single" mother who had 6 kids, and got in vitro fertilization so she now has 8 more kids, is getting tons of book and tv offers.


Well, maybe if she accepts one of these offers, she'll have the money to pay to raise these children, so that the welfare state won't have to do so.

It's interesting....it used to be, women who didnt' get married but had kids were called "unmarried" mothers. Whereas women who got married, had kids, and then got divorced and had custody of their kids, were called, "divorced" mothers.

But, of course, those words are "pejorative", so now, every woman without a husband who is raising kids is called a "single" mother, and there's no way of knowing if they're having babies out of wedlock, in which cases the chances are very likely that the mom is on welfare and it is *our* tax money paying to raise these children, or if they're a divorced mom who is getting alimony from their ex-spouse and therefore is probably not on welfare. (Unless of course the ex-spouse has a $6 hour job at Walmart, in which case, again, they shouldnt' have had a child to begin with.)

Sure, in a perfect world, every woman who wants children has the right to have them. Howevever, a woman who cannot support herself, let alone any children she may give birth to, does *not* have the right to have children, because people do *not* have the right to increase the tax burden of other citizens by having children they cannot afford to have!

Sure, there are exceptions. Someone has a well-paying job, decides to have a child, gets pregnant, then loses her job for whatever reason and can't get another, and thus needs assistance - temporarily - until finding a new job. But those are exceptions. 90% of unmarried mothers are the ones having these babies that they could not afford even before they got pregnant, but secure in the knowledge that they would get welfare, they went ahead on.

And, of course, there's no way to stop it. Religious orders won't let you teach people to use birth control, certain feminist groups say reproduction is a basic female right (I'm a feminist - but I believe in equality!), and the Democrats want as many welfare mouths to feed as possible, to keep them in power.