Liberals when even they can't defend there leaders judicial rulings in the Ricci case and beyond commonly resort to simply saying "well it's really a tuff and complicated and.." and most people will unthinkingly kindly nod in agreement. But these cases are incredibly simple and clear cut that 3rd graders get them-some of these case that is, the most outragous ones.
For instance, here's a message i sent to my face newsletter chain:
you may have noticed that California-the state with the massive poor latino population that the whole USA will also have soon-is in giant debt and falling apart.
You may have wondered like many other sencible Americans: "why don't they just stop paying billions out that they don't have paying to provide there huge illegal alien population 1. free health care 2. free K-12 education 3. free financial aid and 4. free welfare and unemployment services and so fourth?"
Well, actually California in the late 90's voted to ban their billions of hard earned tax dollars from going to illegal aliens, but something happened .In the eyes of Barack Obama and Sonya Sotomayor and the liberal supreme court justices, the "evil" that was this refusal to give illegals billions had to be stopped by any means.
So Obama (who has worked as "constuitional" law professor) and his supreme court pick Sotomayor, supported the Supreme Court in ignoring the most basic rights of both states and citizens, and DECLARING A STATE'S PEOPLE VOTING NOT TO GIVE THEIR MONEY AWAY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS "UNCONSTUITIONAL".
You hopefully are asking yourselves "is he joking?" now. Well indeed i'm not this actually happened. There are actually americans 2 of which are the current president and his supreme court nominee WHO THINK THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS RECIEVING BILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS THROUGH FREE STATE RUN SERVICES MEANT ONLY FOR CITIZENS IS A RIGHT ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTUITION.
That statement alone can't stand up on its own two feet but in case you want me to back it up a little here's just a few points:
Illegal aliens didn't recieve the state run services made and paid for by citizens up until atleast at earliest the 1960's. If it was a clear "right enshrined in the constuition why did 1.not one illegal recieve free tax payer paid for service for the first 190 years of the USA's existence? 2. has anyone including the founders up until the 90's argued that illegals have a "constuitional right" to receieve tax dollars? does illegal status mean essentially nothing? and finally where in our constuition is this right enshrined?
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
A 3-PART MEDIATION ON SOTOMAYOR, SOFT TYRANNY, LEGAL RACISM & HAVING A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE CONSTUITION AND HIS MEDIA MINIONS
PART 1: EXCLUSIVE EMPATHY
well that emphathy post/prediction of mine was dead on wasn't it? Obama picked Sotomayor.
So "empathy" really is obvious code for not giving a damn about the constuition, and making outragous descions that most all americans deplore, denying citizens of the states the right to vote to ban illegals receieving their money, putting race before merit in regard to promoting firefighters and other such contests that should have nothing to do with race, just to name a few things this newest liberal euphism is code for.
As far as real empathy goes-the kind defined in the dictionary-Sotomayor and Obama do have alot for some people (or should i say some colors?) and none for others.
For example if your a white firefighter in New Haven who works hard studying for a test needed for a promotion to captain in a firehouse and you receive out of 70 plus test takers the 7th best score on that test (which would automaticly make you a captain) Sotomayor and Obama have no empathy for you at all.
No they don't give a damn about you at all. Well actually they do they care about you NOT PASSING AND NOT BEING PROMOTED INSTEAD OF PEOPLE WITH BLACK SKIN.
But Obama and Sotomayor do have their special brand empathy ready for you if your a black firefighter in New Haven.
If you didn't study enough for the test for promotion to firefighter captain and you get the worst score out of 70 plus test takers, Obama and Sotomayor, want to make sure you-rather than a white firfighter like the one above who passed the test-get that promotion cause of slavery, and jim CRowe and blah, blah, blah.
And in the rest of the similiar endevours in your life that seemingly require purely merit base copmeition, Sotomayor and Obama will always be there for you and your black brothers like some kind of gaurdian angels, appearing as testtime begins and with a wink and a smile lowering the bar just for you and hightening that bar right back up again when you've cleared it and it's the crackers turn and you've already gotten your job, your promotion, your acceptance letter, your award, your special treatment and your honorable mention.
PART 2: WHY THE COVERAGE OF SOTOMAYOR SHOULD SCARE YOU & HOW FAR WILL THEY GO FOR HIM? HOW FAR WILL HE GO FOR "JUSTICE"? & A RENUION WITH BRITIAN
Oh and don't forget those of us, Sotomayor and Obama, not only have no empathy for but no tolerance for, those americans who dare to write and/or speak negativly of their special "empathy" and their racist laws. If Sotomayor and Obama where to get their way-there's a good chance seeing what the media the media that informs the public has deformed to- that your website, your blog, your article, could be shut down. This has already happened in Britian, where Scotland Yard urges citizens through advertisments online to notify them not if you come across a mugging or prostuition but if you coe across or hear about "right wing extremist" websites.
We already see the soft tryanny and banning of free special that is law in newly multicultral Britian and Canada seeping into America and Sotomayors confirmation will undoubtly be a big step towards bringing the notorious "human rights tribunals" of Canada to America.
Programs like NetNanny that hotels and schools and parents use to block inapprarite sites (e.g. porn sites) from adolcents now block sites like Mark Steyn's personal website and NRO.com, respectivly the biggest conservtive website of the most mainstream conservtive magazine and the and one it's most famous writers (National Reviews colmunists no doubt). If National Review is labeled a "hate site" and blacked by NEtnanny, the whole conservtive sphere of opinion is blocked as i'm sure it is if you just try t o enter takimag.com, chronicles.com, weeklystandard.com, humanevents.com and so on.
And then ofcourse there is the memo Obama's CIA sent out (with his incentive) that asked citizens and authoritys to watch out for "right wing extremist groups" who may center around the issues of "abortion and/or immgration".
And really-one must ask, and reporters will never ask-Obama and/or Sotomayor, if your willing to deny Ricci the promotion he earned because no blacks passed, what principle of restraint is there to stop you from shutting down websites that you or the Southern POverty Law Center or LA RAZA OR the ACLU says "promotes hate against a group"?
It is hard for us conservtives-who see the persuction of a Ricci or a Mark Steyn in Canada or Geert Wilders in the Netherlands as shameful-to even believe or suspect fellow americans on the left to see such soft tryanny and loss of the freedome of free speech differently.
What really has scared me and made me look at the words that say "Soon to be banned in Canda" on the cover of Mark Steyn's America Alone differently about Obama's selection of Sotomayor is the how the media has covered it all as Obama's minions: repeating over and over Obama's official Sotomayor talking point about "her story", and the other infuraitingly dishonest assigned talking point about how "Sotomayor is hardly liberal" so much so the GOP really has nothing to say against her and awhile in these NPR and ABC and CNN segments "on Sotomayor" never even mention anything but biography and her superb affirmtive action credentials, not one mention of any of her descions nor any utterance of the name Ricci.
Everyone has know for awhile now (except apparently MediaMatters.com) that the media has a liberal bias and even bigger pro- Obama bias, bias' which are startling to those few of us who know of the news that NPR, ABC and the rest of the MSM knowingly ignore, distort or gloss over. But the unknown thing has always been for me atleast:how far will they go for this guy?
I thought there bare coverage of Rev. Wright (the ny times mention rev. wright for the 1st time 5 months after the fact) showed that if forced to by the fear that they can't get away with ignore and supressing news bad for obama they would cover it with extra liberal bias. But after Rev. Wright-as CHristopher Hitchens said-the media felt guilty for even covering Rev. Wright and resolved not to do so again. And everything since Rev. Wright suggests the well connected Hitchen's word is right.
The Uniformity o the MSM's Coverage of Sotomayor pretty much soldifies that if there is a news-story (a unusually intresting poltical story to average people as the Ricci case is) the MSM will simply shamefully not mention it. And worst of all there is no real consquence, the disserviced public knows not what they're not beiing told about Sotomayor and Obama views, and the MSM scoundrels doing there part for TEAM OBAMA don't hear the rigetous denuciations coming from the Limbaugh and Taki T. and the rest of the few of us left that know what the hells going on called consertives.
We'll see when other Ricci like scandals such as Card Check and The fairness doctrine come along again about how far the MSM will go. BUt as of now, the MSM has shown that it will do whatever it takes and supress whatever it takes for Obama and as long as that true OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS REALLY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. Even with 60 or 61 democratic senate seats, with a left slanted media of the BUsh years the MSM would atleast cover big bills that the Dem's would have passed. And knowing that there will be MSM coverage and thus somekind of citizen reaction, enough democrats would have voted against disgraceful bills like amnesty and the fairness doctrine in fear of losing their seat and in doing so stopped such scandals from crossing over from liberal scheme into American law.
BUt now that the MSM has shown how deep its love is for there man by actually ignoring stories and bills like Ricci and the fairness doctrine, those few worried Democratic Senators that would have blocked a Fairness Doctrine in fear won't now that there is nothing for them to fear.
And so the next question, now that it seems Obama can do whatever he wants without major recourse, is HOW FAR WILL OBAMA GO?
PART 3:STATUS AND POLTICS VOL 1.: WHITES WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT RICCI & LEGALIZED ANTI-WHITE DISCRIMINATION AND THE REASON WHY
And the whites i know for the most part -who are the midwestern versions of the people in the west who decide what movies get made and right there anti-american scripts and of those in east who run the mainstream media with the journalstic intregrity and objectivty of Obama P.R. people- they don't give a damn about Ricci and affirmtive action and quoatas and so on, even when you personalize this legalized racism with the heart renching story of a Ricci, which is odd right?
Well in almost any other group on earth it would be very odd if it were ever to happen, indifference towards systematic discrimination agaginst your good group in employment and oppurtinty would be quite odd.
For a group-catholics, luddites, conservtives, blacks, hawians, watever group it may be- to be not indifferent but to support EXSPLICIT LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST YOUR GROUP is bizarre.
But among white americans-unlike any other such group i know of- i know of, it is not hard to find many of this group, white americans, that are indifferent and even indeed open supporters even vigorous promoters for systematic legalized discrimination against white americans.
Can anyone point towards a latino advocate to have to do better than blacks to get into in the same school?
Ofcourse you can't, cause what kind of sane group of people or just sane person wants to be discriminated against in law when they try to get into a college, get a job, or get a promotion?
So i guess many whites males are insane, they're also liberals.
When i talk about Ricci and the like to liberals they usually ask "why do you even care?", "how does affirmtive action effect you?". The questions would suggest they don't what affirmtive action is, but the reason they ask that question to me-a white male-is because they pity minoritys so much, and are so non-threatned by blacks professionals and indeed are so unfimiliar with blacks in their careers, that when these liberal elites say "what has affirmtive action done to you?" they are really saying "c'mon, you know that affirmtive action and such is just charity to minority, it's just another hand out, so we'll let 2 blacks kids go to Princetown who wouldn't have been able to on their own merit, whats the big deal with that?"
To not be threatned or offended by racist anti-white legal discrimination with most all liberal elite positions has it's status element aswell. To be in different to affirmtive actiona nd quotas and so fourth shows-such liberal elites think- how secure they are in their own careers, that they don't have to worry about compeition on uneven ground.
It's those "embarsing" whites on the perphirery-the coal miners, firefighters, truck drivers, sales clerks like Ricci-who are outraged by Leglaized Anti-white racism, liberal elites believe (somewhat correctly) and whatever those whites do or think or like, elite whites instinvily do the opposite, especially poltically.
well that emphathy post/prediction of mine was dead on wasn't it? Obama picked Sotomayor.
So "empathy" really is obvious code for not giving a damn about the constuition, and making outragous descions that most all americans deplore, denying citizens of the states the right to vote to ban illegals receieving their money, putting race before merit in regard to promoting firefighters and other such contests that should have nothing to do with race, just to name a few things this newest liberal euphism is code for.
As far as real empathy goes-the kind defined in the dictionary-Sotomayor and Obama do have alot for some people (or should i say some colors?) and none for others.
For example if your a white firefighter in New Haven who works hard studying for a test needed for a promotion to captain in a firehouse and you receive out of 70 plus test takers the 7th best score on that test (which would automaticly make you a captain) Sotomayor and Obama have no empathy for you at all.
No they don't give a damn about you at all. Well actually they do they care about you NOT PASSING AND NOT BEING PROMOTED INSTEAD OF PEOPLE WITH BLACK SKIN.
But Obama and Sotomayor do have their special brand empathy ready for you if your a black firefighter in New Haven.
If you didn't study enough for the test for promotion to firefighter captain and you get the worst score out of 70 plus test takers, Obama and Sotomayor, want to make sure you-rather than a white firfighter like the one above who passed the test-get that promotion cause of slavery, and jim CRowe and blah, blah, blah.
And in the rest of the similiar endevours in your life that seemingly require purely merit base copmeition, Sotomayor and Obama will always be there for you and your black brothers like some kind of gaurdian angels, appearing as testtime begins and with a wink and a smile lowering the bar just for you and hightening that bar right back up again when you've cleared it and it's the crackers turn and you've already gotten your job, your promotion, your acceptance letter, your award, your special treatment and your honorable mention.
PART 2: WHY THE COVERAGE OF SOTOMAYOR SHOULD SCARE YOU & HOW FAR WILL THEY GO FOR HIM? HOW FAR WILL HE GO FOR "JUSTICE"? & A RENUION WITH BRITIAN
Oh and don't forget those of us, Sotomayor and Obama, not only have no empathy for but no tolerance for, those americans who dare to write and/or speak negativly of their special "empathy" and their racist laws. If Sotomayor and Obama where to get their way-there's a good chance seeing what the media the media that informs the public has deformed to- that your website, your blog, your article, could be shut down. This has already happened in Britian, where Scotland Yard urges citizens through advertisments online to notify them not if you come across a mugging or prostuition but if you coe across or hear about "right wing extremist" websites.
We already see the soft tryanny and banning of free special that is law in newly multicultral Britian and Canada seeping into America and Sotomayors confirmation will undoubtly be a big step towards bringing the notorious "human rights tribunals" of Canada to America.
Programs like NetNanny that hotels and schools and parents use to block inapprarite sites (e.g. porn sites) from adolcents now block sites like Mark Steyn's personal website and NRO.com, respectivly the biggest conservtive website of the most mainstream conservtive magazine and the and one it's most famous writers (National Reviews colmunists no doubt). If National Review is labeled a "hate site" and blacked by NEtnanny, the whole conservtive sphere of opinion is blocked as i'm sure it is if you just try t o enter takimag.com, chronicles.com, weeklystandard.com, humanevents.com and so on.
And then ofcourse there is the memo Obama's CIA sent out (with his incentive) that asked citizens and authoritys to watch out for "right wing extremist groups" who may center around the issues of "abortion and/or immgration".
And really-one must ask, and reporters will never ask-Obama and/or Sotomayor, if your willing to deny Ricci the promotion he earned because no blacks passed, what principle of restraint is there to stop you from shutting down websites that you or the Southern POverty Law Center or LA RAZA OR the ACLU says "promotes hate against a group"?
It is hard for us conservtives-who see the persuction of a Ricci or a Mark Steyn in Canada or Geert Wilders in the Netherlands as shameful-to even believe or suspect fellow americans on the left to see such soft tryanny and loss of the freedome of free speech differently.
What really has scared me and made me look at the words that say "Soon to be banned in Canda" on the cover of Mark Steyn's America Alone differently about Obama's selection of Sotomayor is the how the media has covered it all as Obama's minions: repeating over and over Obama's official Sotomayor talking point about "her story", and the other infuraitingly dishonest assigned talking point about how "Sotomayor is hardly liberal" so much so the GOP really has nothing to say against her and awhile in these NPR and ABC and CNN segments "on Sotomayor" never even mention anything but biography and her superb affirmtive action credentials, not one mention of any of her descions nor any utterance of the name Ricci.
Everyone has know for awhile now (except apparently MediaMatters.com) that the media has a liberal bias and even bigger pro- Obama bias, bias' which are startling to those few of us who know of the news that NPR, ABC and the rest of the MSM knowingly ignore, distort or gloss over. But the unknown thing has always been for me atleast:how far will they go for this guy?
I thought there bare coverage of Rev. Wright (the ny times mention rev. wright for the 1st time 5 months after the fact) showed that if forced to by the fear that they can't get away with ignore and supressing news bad for obama they would cover it with extra liberal bias. But after Rev. Wright-as CHristopher Hitchens said-the media felt guilty for even covering Rev. Wright and resolved not to do so again. And everything since Rev. Wright suggests the well connected Hitchen's word is right.
The Uniformity o the MSM's Coverage of Sotomayor pretty much soldifies that if there is a news-story (a unusually intresting poltical story to average people as the Ricci case is) the MSM will simply shamefully not mention it. And worst of all there is no real consquence, the disserviced public knows not what they're not beiing told about Sotomayor and Obama views, and the MSM scoundrels doing there part for TEAM OBAMA don't hear the rigetous denuciations coming from the Limbaugh and Taki T. and the rest of the few of us left that know what the hells going on called consertives.
We'll see when other Ricci like scandals such as Card Check and The fairness doctrine come along again about how far the MSM will go. BUt as of now, the MSM has shown that it will do whatever it takes and supress whatever it takes for Obama and as long as that true OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS REALLY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. Even with 60 or 61 democratic senate seats, with a left slanted media of the BUsh years the MSM would atleast cover big bills that the Dem's would have passed. And knowing that there will be MSM coverage and thus somekind of citizen reaction, enough democrats would have voted against disgraceful bills like amnesty and the fairness doctrine in fear of losing their seat and in doing so stopped such scandals from crossing over from liberal scheme into American law.
BUt now that the MSM has shown how deep its love is for there man by actually ignoring stories and bills like Ricci and the fairness doctrine, those few worried Democratic Senators that would have blocked a Fairness Doctrine in fear won't now that there is nothing for them to fear.
And so the next question, now that it seems Obama can do whatever he wants without major recourse, is HOW FAR WILL OBAMA GO?
PART 3:STATUS AND POLTICS VOL 1.: WHITES WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT RICCI & LEGALIZED ANTI-WHITE DISCRIMINATION AND THE REASON WHY
And the whites i know for the most part -who are the midwestern versions of the people in the west who decide what movies get made and right there anti-american scripts and of those in east who run the mainstream media with the journalstic intregrity and objectivty of Obama P.R. people- they don't give a damn about Ricci and affirmtive action and quoatas and so on, even when you personalize this legalized racism with the heart renching story of a Ricci, which is odd right?
Well in almost any other group on earth it would be very odd if it were ever to happen, indifference towards systematic discrimination agaginst your good group in employment and oppurtinty would be quite odd.
For a group-catholics, luddites, conservtives, blacks, hawians, watever group it may be- to be not indifferent but to support EXSPLICIT LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST YOUR GROUP is bizarre.
But among white americans-unlike any other such group i know of- i know of, it is not hard to find many of this group, white americans, that are indifferent and even indeed open supporters even vigorous promoters for systematic legalized discrimination against white americans.
Can anyone point towards a latino advocate to have to do better than blacks to get into in the same school?
Ofcourse you can't, cause what kind of sane group of people or just sane person wants to be discriminated against in law when they try to get into a college, get a job, or get a promotion?
So i guess many whites males are insane, they're also liberals.
When i talk about Ricci and the like to liberals they usually ask "why do you even care?", "how does affirmtive action effect you?". The questions would suggest they don't what affirmtive action is, but the reason they ask that question to me-a white male-is because they pity minoritys so much, and are so non-threatned by blacks professionals and indeed are so unfimiliar with blacks in their careers, that when these liberal elites say "what has affirmtive action done to you?" they are really saying "c'mon, you know that affirmtive action and such is just charity to minority, it's just another hand out, so we'll let 2 blacks kids go to Princetown who wouldn't have been able to on their own merit, whats the big deal with that?"
To not be threatned or offended by racist anti-white legal discrimination with most all liberal elite positions has it's status element aswell. To be in different to affirmtive actiona nd quotas and so fourth shows-such liberal elites think- how secure they are in their own careers, that they don't have to worry about compeition on uneven ground.
It's those "embarsing" whites on the perphirery-the coal miners, firefighters, truck drivers, sales clerks like Ricci-who are outraged by Leglaized Anti-white racism, liberal elites believe (somewhat correctly) and whatever those whites do or think or like, elite whites instinvily do the opposite, especially poltically.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Deciphring liberal bullshit
don't you love that gasy liberal talk?
Obama on how he wants "empathy" in a supreme court justice:
"I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."
TRANSLATION:
Obama wants a justice that:
1. supports suing banks for not giving “enough” loans to minoritys and find such action constuitional.
the responces:
Obama on how he wants "empathy" in a supreme court justice:
"I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."
TRANSLATION:
Obama wants a justice that:
1. supports suing banks for not giving “enough” loans to minoritys and find such action constuitional.
2. supports throwing out the results of tests firefighters take because they don’t like the lack of passing minoritys scores and find such action constuitional.
3. That they believe it’s unconstuitional for californians to vote to pass a proposition that would deny tax dollars to go to illegal immgrants.
P.S.
on Matt Ygelisas. think progress blog i wrote in regard to a post on Sotomayor
the responces:
- Barbar Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pmHow do borderline illiterates wind up with opinions about who belongs on the Supreme Court?
- SLC Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 1:02 pmRe Daniel Schwarz
Should one pay any attention to a fucking asshole like Mr. Schwarz who can’t even spell constitution? A visit to Mr. Schwarzs’ website (which I don’t recommend as it recalls visits to Don Blacks’ stormfront website) shows a bigoted shithead who hates Latinos.
- daniel schwartz Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pmgreat arguments guys!
you really made serious arguments, didn’t you?
why don’t you address somethin besides my lack of spellchecking?
how bout’ some actually arguments? how about you tell me how i’m wrong? tell me about why the mayor of new haven is right? etc.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Obama Youth: guess what black fraternities do on there free time
this is good news for all those condenscding, naive people who think black people will stop complaining about racism and do better if Obama gets elected.
but for me this is just scary, scary and bizarely hilarious. obama fans beware this may make you slightly embarssed for a moment.enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEQz5dltmI
this does a lot in the way of legitimazing the argument of my next evanstonian columnm as you'll see when i post the thing.
the rise of obama youth. not a shock to me.
p.s.
how many millions of wasted hours can be atrributed to youtube?
but for me this is just scary, scary and bizarely hilarious. obama fans beware this may make you slightly embarssed for a moment.enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEQz5dltmI
this does a lot in the way of legitimazing the argument of my next evanstonian columnm as you'll see when i post the thing.
the rise of obama youth. not a shock to me.
p.s.
how many millions of wasted hours can be atrributed to youtube?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
In praise of staright forwardness and candor
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=palin+cbs&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=2#q=palin%20cbs%20reads&emb=0
First of all as the above video demonstrates, Palin is embrassing often. To be honest she looks to me like a hockey mom stuck in a bad dream where she is running for vice president and has to answer all the press' questions when she really desperatly just wants to say "i don't know!" and go home and play with her baby, Trig.
But i also think Palin views things in a clear way that is often muddled by academics and people who fancy themselves as "intellectual". Some may laugh when she says that she wouldn't question Isreal if they attacked Iran's nuclear facilties because she as she says she sees Amnejihad as a "bad guy" and Israeli's as good guys. I don't. In fact it's quite refreshing to hear people calling it like it is in that way.
There is one area inwhich i think her being opposite of Obama is a good thing and that is that she doesn't bullshit cause she isn't agile enough to bullshit. Obama is spectacular at not answering questions and giving supremly hazy ones when he does answer, and it's because he's so articulate. Palin and Bush's minds unlike Clinton's, for instance, don't allow them to lie like Clinton did.
There are many issues where Palin's clear sightdness is infinetly preferable to Obama's harvard educated intellect. Palin just see's what has to be done, bottom line(and her instinics i think tend to be pretty good):
immgration? Build a fence. Deport those caught. Penatlize empoleyers who hire illegals. Stop giving wel fair to illegals.
Iranian nukes? Iran must never get nukes. The things the iranian theocrats have said and done make that unacceptable and we will do whatever nesscary to stop them from acquiring nukes.
Diplomacy with Iran? The europeans have tried it for 4 years and it's been proven futile. The Iranians have broken every treaty and agreement theyve gone into on such matters.
Making education better? Give Parents the power of choice with vouchers, make schools compete. Tv's and radio's have gotten better and cheaper only because they've had to compete, why exzempt something as important as education from such productive compeition?
Lowering Energy prices? Advance altertive energys but also drill for oil that we have untapped. we are going to buy oil, why not put money in the treasury in Washington D.C. rather than ones in Tehran and Riyadhi?
Obama on the otherhand will answer these questions differntly for whatever paticular audience he is speaking for. For Obama, when asked why he sat in the pews of a america hating reverend who happened to be his mentor he gives a 40 minuete speech on race and doesn't answer the question though he impressive all the Ivy league intellectuals. It was a elouqnt speech writing like a Harvard dissertation, but it's core points where fraudglent and deplorable and it compeltly avoided the question of why he stayed in Trinty UNited for 20 years.
I think it's about time we gave a little praise to straight forwardness and transperency given that it is so rare among Polticians.
First of all as the above video demonstrates, Palin is embrassing often. To be honest she looks to me like a hockey mom stuck in a bad dream where she is running for vice president and has to answer all the press' questions when she really desperatly just wants to say "i don't know!" and go home and play with her baby, Trig.
But i also think Palin views things in a clear way that is often muddled by academics and people who fancy themselves as "intellectual". Some may laugh when she says that she wouldn't question Isreal if they attacked Iran's nuclear facilties because she as she says she sees Amnejihad as a "bad guy" and Israeli's as good guys. I don't. In fact it's quite refreshing to hear people calling it like it is in that way.
There is one area inwhich i think her being opposite of Obama is a good thing and that is that she doesn't bullshit cause she isn't agile enough to bullshit. Obama is spectacular at not answering questions and giving supremly hazy ones when he does answer, and it's because he's so articulate. Palin and Bush's minds unlike Clinton's, for instance, don't allow them to lie like Clinton did.
There are many issues where Palin's clear sightdness is infinetly preferable to Obama's harvard educated intellect. Palin just see's what has to be done, bottom line(and her instinics i think tend to be pretty good):
immgration? Build a fence. Deport those caught. Penatlize empoleyers who hire illegals. Stop giving wel fair to illegals.
Iranian nukes? Iran must never get nukes. The things the iranian theocrats have said and done make that unacceptable and we will do whatever nesscary to stop them from acquiring nukes.
Diplomacy with Iran? The europeans have tried it for 4 years and it's been proven futile. The Iranians have broken every treaty and agreement theyve gone into on such matters.
Making education better? Give Parents the power of choice with vouchers, make schools compete. Tv's and radio's have gotten better and cheaper only because they've had to compete, why exzempt something as important as education from such productive compeition?
Lowering Energy prices? Advance altertive energys but also drill for oil that we have untapped. we are going to buy oil, why not put money in the treasury in Washington D.C. rather than ones in Tehran and Riyadhi?
Obama on the otherhand will answer these questions differntly for whatever paticular audience he is speaking for. For Obama, when asked why he sat in the pews of a america hating reverend who happened to be his mentor he gives a 40 minuete speech on race and doesn't answer the question though he impressive all the Ivy league intellectuals. It was a elouqnt speech writing like a Harvard dissertation, but it's core points where fraudglent and deplorable and it compeltly avoided the question of why he stayed in Trinty UNited for 20 years.
I think it's about time we gave a little praise to straight forwardness and transperency given that it is so rare among Polticians.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
on the debates
Mccain certainly did not look like a man a few years away from death. He looked vital. But the debate was even which helps Obama.
Mccain could have done better on taxes and iran. He missed alot of oppurtinties, esepcially on not attacking Obama's tax policy or exsplaining his tax policy. He should have mentioned in regard to Iran diplomacy that such diplomacy with Iran has been proven futile for the last 3 years as the European's have tried and failed to do what Obama wants to do more of. Mccain should have put out the facts also that Iran has broken all there agreements and treatys before. Is Amnejihad just waiting to shake a American presidents hand in order to give up his nuclear pursuit?
Ironically Obama gave a much more compelling case for why Iran must not get nukes. Mccain should have exsplained how easily Iran could give nuclear material to Hezbollah who can make dirty bombs which by lobbing into Israel can make 80 oercent of that nation unliveable. He should have mentioned that Iran blew up a jewish community center in Argentina and that if they were to get nukes we would be setting a precendent on nukes which would allow anyone to acquire nukes.
I think Obama did the best he could, Mccain will win the next debates because he can improve on his first debate performance which was itself pretty good.
It was defintly the best poltical debate i've seen in 8 years.
Aside from policy, we have nominated two very likeable people.
Mccain could have done better on taxes and iran. He missed alot of oppurtinties, esepcially on not attacking Obama's tax policy or exsplaining his tax policy. He should have mentioned in regard to Iran diplomacy that such diplomacy with Iran has been proven futile for the last 3 years as the European's have tried and failed to do what Obama wants to do more of. Mccain should have put out the facts also that Iran has broken all there agreements and treatys before. Is Amnejihad just waiting to shake a American presidents hand in order to give up his nuclear pursuit?
Ironically Obama gave a much more compelling case for why Iran must not get nukes. Mccain should have exsplained how easily Iran could give nuclear material to Hezbollah who can make dirty bombs which by lobbing into Israel can make 80 oercent of that nation unliveable. He should have mentioned that Iran blew up a jewish community center in Argentina and that if they were to get nukes we would be setting a precendent on nukes which would allow anyone to acquire nukes.
I think Obama did the best he could, Mccain will win the next debates because he can improve on his first debate performance which was itself pretty good.
It was defintly the best poltical debate i've seen in 8 years.
Aside from policy, we have nominated two very likeable people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
May 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
can the people who support Sotomayor, please also say
that they:
1. support suing banks for not giving “enough” loans to minoritys and find such action constuitional.
2. support throwing out the results of tests firefighters take because they don’t like the lack of passing minoritys scores and find such action constuitional.
3. That they believe it’s unconstuitional for californians to vote to pass a proposition that would deny tax dollars to go to illegal imgrants.
stand up tall and pride!