HuffPo: Scrap Nuclear Arsenal to Fund Obamacare Sunday, March 07 @ 01:28:07 EST by default
In response to an article the Washington Post put out yesterday outlining decisions the Obama administration is facing regarding the future of missile defense, the HuffPo - ever the giants of analytical intellect, offer the following:
"... A reader would also search in vain for any talk of a "fiscal crisis" or a need to balance nuclear weapons priorities with available revenues. That same reader, of course, rarely has to venture past the first sentence of a health care reform story to find that the subject is a "trillion dollar overhaul." (Oh hold on, it gets better.)
They go on to note a proposal from Representative Blarney Frank (D Mass.) regarding what is being called the triad (Sends shivers down your spine doesn't it?) of warhead deployment systems; ground launched ICBMs, submarines equipped with nuclear missiles and nuclear bombs/missiles designed for deployment by stealth bombers:
Frank told HuffPost. "My radical proposal is that we say to the Pentagon that they can pick two of the three, and let us abolish one."
The article closes with this pearl:
"The amount that could be saved by cutting any of the three is likely much higher than the two largest ways Obama has identified to pay for health care reform..."
At the end of the HuffPo article is a poll: "Which one of the "triad" nuclear delivery systems should the U.S. eliminate?" So far, 27% of HuffPo's readers have chosen "All of them."
Aside from the vast differences in the costs of the two programs - around 29 billion dollars a year spent on nuclear weapons and Obamacare expected to cost upwards of 1 trillion dollars over 10 years (that's 100 billion per year for those of you from Rio Linda) - what could possibly go wrong?
Repo Men Wednesday, March 03 @ 21:18:19 EST by default
Looks like a pretty good flick doesn't it? I think I might go see it. Every once-in-awhile I like seeing a good action flick. Good special effects, a little ass-kicking, witty one-liners - it'll get me all pumped up.
But we could easily replace the cliche 'evil corporation' in this story for an evil government. A government that says that you have the right to health care and gives you everything for free - that is until your life depends on it. Then they take you to stand before the board of the "Health Care Fairness Assurance Commission" and they decide your fate by a majority vote. How old are you? The time you have left might not be worth the investment. Some politicians on the board would rather give an old guy a pill rather than allow them into an already overburdened system. Are you disabled? You may have a long life ahead but you might not have the ability to contribute much to the greater good of society. If you've already served out your 8 years in the Citizen Corps there's even less incentive to give you the thumbs up. Are you a supporter of 'The Party'? A Party man might be given leniency. Yeah, you used to be able to go across the border and pay to get your treatment if the board gave you the thumbs down, but when droves of people began pouring out of the country to avoid the long wait just to stand in front the the Fairness Committee they outlawed that. These days if you're on the waiting list and they catch you trying to cross the border the Federal Bureau of Population Retention tracks you down and volunteers you for the organ donor program.
Naaa, that wouldn't make a good movie. It's not historically accurate. Historically it has always been the businesses that become corrupt, tyrannical and end up exploiting the people. Like in North Korea, China, the U.S.S.R., Cuba, Iran, North Vietnam, WWII Germany and Japan, the European dark ages...
Huh? Of course we all know there is no historical context for this whatsoever! It has always been the government that fills this role and throughout history never once has business had this kind of totalitarian power! As a matter of fact the truth is the complete opposite of the common narrative! It is impossible for a business to have this amount of power without the blessing and the legal enforcement of the government. And in a free market system that welcomes competition a competitor with a customer friendly business model would quickly run any such abusive 'corporation' out of business. In this case again, only the government that has the power to reinforce a monopoly and perpetuate a business that would otherwise fail (like Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, AIG, General Motors, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs...) could make the existence of such a business even possible.
But isn't the fact that this film is coming out right now, right as the Democrats are about to Rahm through health care legislation that will pave the way to total government control of health care industry just a little convenient? Could it be that Hollywood is in bed with the government and is putting out propaganda pieces just at the right time in order to promote a system that is more than a little controversial?
Naaa, couldn't be.
March 4, 2010 - Update:
Wired magazine has also taken notice of this curious coincidence and tends to agree with my assessment of the timing of this film's release. As a matter of fact, they say that Universal Pictures sped up the release date for the film because of the worsening economic circumstances. They refer to Universal's move as 'good capitalism' which I guess I can buy as long as you are including crony-capitalism in the general use of the term. Wired of course being a mainstream zine written by mainstream elitists also appears to buy the baseless narrative of the film and signs on to the idea that 'corporate greed' is the cause of all ills. It is one of life's common grotesqueries, isn't it, that often times the people pushing the notion of 'corporate greed' belong to a corporation of some sort.
Robert Gibbs Needs Crib Notes to give Press Briefing Tuesday, February 09 @ 14:14:04 EST by default
White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs apparently needed a little help performing his duties today and so like some of the racist, redneck simpletons we all know - decided to write down what he needed to say on his hand.
The notes most likely weren't used for the Obama followup, for which he used prepared remarks, but for the Q&A session that followed, during which he glanced at the hand in question.
But in my opinion that's even worse.
The takeaway is that this press secretary apparently can't remember his supposed core principles or even his daily duties and needs a cheat-sheet when simply asked about his opinion.
Crib Notes? This Obama White House press secretary and spokesman for "hope and change", and "the one we've all been waiting for" was using crib notes to answer basic questions?
This would mean:
A) That he knew the questions beforehand and the whole thing was a farce. (Likely.)
and
B) That he still couldn't answer the previously agreed-upon questions without a little extra help.
You can bet that Tony Snow wasn't reading scribbles off his extremities while he sparred with Republicans and Democrats in an unscripted format during his press briefings.
Gibbs, on the other hand, seems to need a cheat-sheet just to get through a contrived lovefest with smitten liberal journalists.
I'm no fan of the progressive movement - if it can be called such - but if this is their leader's spokesman I actually sympathize with them.
Click here for the large resolution uncut image of Gibbs & his crib notes.
Update:
Fox News caught on to this and blew up the picture. Notice the "hope" and "change" scribbled on his hand. This is likely a joke aimed at Sarah Palin.
Fox News had to steal my thunder :) No worries. Looks like a funny, yet partisan and somewhat unprofessional joke from the spokesman. Huff&Puff hypocrisy still withstanding :)
Update:
It finally all comes together. Gibbs mockingly read the notes off of his hand during the press briefing to make a point of making fun of Palin. These are the guys who are ready to negotiate on health care. Yeah, I believe it.
The notes most likely weren't for her speech, for which she used prepared remarks, but for the Q&A session that followed, during which she glanced at the hand in question.
But in my opinion that's even worse.
The takeaway is that this presidential contender apparently can't remember her supposed core principles and needs a cheat-sheet when simply asked about her beliefs.
Crib Notes? This potential presidential candidate and "movement" leader was using crib notes to answer basic questions?
This would mean:
A) That she knew the questions beforehand and the whole thing was a farce. (Likely.)
and
B) That she still couldn't answer the previously agreed-upon questions without a little extra help.
You can bet that the President wasn't reading scribbles off his extremities while he sparred with Republicans and Democrats in an unscripted format in his recent Q&As.
Palin, on the other hand, seems to need a cheat-sheet just to get through a contrived lovefest with a smitten interviewer and an adoring audience.
I'm no fan of the Tea Party movement - if it can be called such - but if this is their leader I actually sympathize with them.
The HuffPo said the following about Palin and her notes, "this presidential contender apparently can't remember her supposed core principles and needs a cheat-sheet when simply asked about her beliefs", "was using crib notes to answer basic questions" and "seems to need a cheat-sheet just to get through a contrived lovefest." Our actual President on the other hand, Mr. Obama who apparently can't speak to 6 year-olds without using a teleprompter, is the most articulate and intelligent man ever to set foot in the White House.
Palin was participating in a speech / discussion event with her supporters. One can hardly condemn a person engaged in such an event for writing 6 words on on her hand, President Obama on the other hand, rarely engages in any public discussion without his teleprompter. To condemn Palin for 6 words and defend the President for reading his every word is boundless hypocrisy.
The HuffPo also accuses Palin of engaging in a prepared Q&A session onstage, condemns her for it and says that it is even worse than using notes for a speech. Lest we forget...
It was none other than the Huffington Post who engaged in a prepared question and answer session with President Obama during a White House press event! So for the Huffington Puffington Post to be condemning anyone for engaging in answering prepared questions is absolutely incredible.
Honestly though, this comes as no surprise from the bigots at the Huff Post who couldn't see the forest through the trees if you air lifted them above it to show it to them. One of the things I find interesting about the HuffPo is that every time any article is written about Sarah Palin, whether it be this one or about her daughter's ex-fiance or about her latest pair of shoes, it is immediately overrun with comments. Sarah Palin is not a public official at this time. Why all the anger? But of course, you and I already know the answer to that...
I hate to have to agree with a guy like Rahm Emanuel, but some of the liberal activists who come up with of these blatant smear attempts are just "F-ing retarded."
In his only Australian interview, the outspoken singer said he and his Grammy-winning band prefer to help in private with no press conferences.
"I do it myself, I don't tell everybody I'm doing it," Johnson said.
"I don't tell everybody they should give money - they can't afford it.
"When I was a working man I didn't want to go to a concert for some bastard to talk down to me that I should be thinking of some kid in Africa.
"I'm sorry mate, do it yourself, spend some of your own money and get it done. It just makes me angry. I become all tyrannical."
Johnson said AC/DC's aversion to playing at charity events goes back to turning down a slot at 1985's Live Aid.
"Bob Geldof is a canny lad. He did what he thought was right at the time but it didn't work," he said. "The money didn't go to poor people. It makes me mad when people try to use politics or charity for publicity.
"Do a charity gig, fair enough, but not on worldwide television."
I couldn't agree more Mr. Johnson. If celebrities really cared so much about the causes they support they'd keep their names out of the associated headline. The only reason they put it in there is to promote themselves as humanitarians of the year. Politicians do it, beer companies do it, oil companies do it, cigarette manufacturers do it. Pretty much every major business you can think of has a philanthropic arm. It makes consumers feel good to know that the products they purchase support a good cause. So what's the difference between the cigarette companies and the politicians and celebrities? The cigarette companies are more modest about their charity work. Cigarette companies and oil companies sell a product. Politicians and celebrities are selling an image. Which leads us to the real question; What is an image? Regardless of who's image is for sale, one thing is certain; the image that's for sale is different than the person who is selling it. Personally, I like to keep things simple and call an "image" for what it is; a lie. Prominent examples would be John Edwards or Tiger Woods. The images the media portrayed of these men was the total opposite of who they were in actuality. A regular joe who overtly associates himself with such an image is looking to create an image for himself as well...
MSNBCs Ed Schultz Advocates Voter Fraud in Massachusetts Sunday, January 17 @ 19:38:38 EST by default
Schultz:I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.
And to think, these are the same people who get so self-righteously defensive when you accuse them of advocating registration fraud via ACORN. The same people who now often talk openly about Bush having stolen both the 2000 and the 2004 elections as if it were a matter of fact.
More of the same from the big thinkers on the fascist left.
They Propagandized 007 Friday, November 14 @ 05:21:29 EST by default
007 is one of my favorite movie series of all time. Regardless of how full of cheap action and cheesy plots, I always saw the series as a symbol of western patriotism and respect for the men and women who do in real life (the military, CIA, FBI, MI6, etc.) what James Bond does in the movies.
Quantum of Solace takes a broad step in the strange new direction they are taking in the series. 007 has become more human, more realistic and more of a tortured elitist than the old cocky and infallible secret agent we are used to. While I do appreciate the step toward realism, to make James Bond too human would be to remove the nature of his indestructible appeal. You can't make a realistic movie franchise about a career assassin who never gets killed or permanently imprisoned. The reason why people love Bond is because he is infallible; his story is an escape from the fragility of true life. Real life stories about governmental agents who kill and capture terrorists are in the news every day and while many are heroic, the operations are rarely if ever accomplished entirely by a single man, and the tales are no where near as glamorous as any of the adventures of 007. I know this is going to be hard to swallow so I’ll try to paint the broad picture I see for you.
The change to this new style began with Casino Royale and while not my favorite of the series, the times change and I did think it was a good movie. One thing about it did bother me though; the intro. Bond movies usually start out with a gratuitous yet artful display of sex and violence in the introduction to the film and the opener for Casino Royale was absolutely devoid of sex. I didn’t think much of it, but it bothered me that they broke with tradition and went in a more “politically correct” direction. After I saw the intro to Quantum of Solace I felt a bit relieved to see that they had replaced some of the sex in the intro, but something about it was different. It had an aura of a 60 acid trip. Yeah I know, they all do but this one was... The only way I can think of to describe it was that it reminded me a little bit of an early David Bowie video. Although I admit that I probably would have dismissed it if the movie that followed didn't piss me off so much. It is also worth mentioning that Quantum of Solace had none of the usual Bond trademark one-liners and I didn't hear the 007 theme music play anywhere in the film.
The first propagandistic thing I noticed about Quantum of Solace was that there were hydrogen fuel cell cars all over the place. I counted at least 3 of them in completely geographically separate areas Bond visited while traversing the globe hunting villains. This is an obvious plug for alternative energy if not for environmental legislation. While I do find this bit of environmentalist propaganda troubling, it doesn't necessarily spoil the movie for me. The next thing I noticed was that all of the main bad guys in the movie were rich capitalist businessmen belonging to some sort of yet undisclosed illuminati type organization. This bothers me more. I get so sick of media elitists trying to shove down my throat the idea that the rich businessmen are the bad guys. That left a bad taste in my mouth but the thing that really put me off was a short fairly unrelated scene depicting CIA agents making deals to ignore corrupt governments in exchange for oil. (As if a CIA agent would have either the power or the desire to make such a deal. Such an act would be career suicide and even if they were to get away with it they would recieve no personal benefit from it. The only person who would conceivably be involved in this situation would be a politician who could brag about the posative implications to the voters.) Contrast that with the CIA agents in the other 007 films who were depicted as cowboys, but they were good guys who would often work with James Bond. Clearly the change reflects on the way that these elitist snob filmmakers see the world. Oh and there was one more thing; you know how traditionally in American films the bad guys always demand payment in U.S. dollars? Well in this movie they pay in Euros and make a point to say that “the dollar isn’t what it once was” which as Antwaan points out, is factually inaccurate; The dollar has been increasing in value against the Euro for the past few months.
I’m through funding people who tear down both my country and the capitalist system that supports their own livelihoods by telling the entire world that the United States is a corrupt and decaying nation. They corrupted one of my favorite symbols of western patriotism and turned him into an anti-American piece of propaganda.
NY Slimes releases classified data ... again Tuesday, November 11 @ 09:47:30 EST by default
On Sunday, the New York Times released a story claiming that in 2004 Donald Rumsfeld signed an order allowing military strikes against Al Qaeda in some of the countries that harbor them. Syria and Pakistan were mentioned specifically. To those of us who pay attention to the news, this is not a surprise. Personally I'm holding on to the hope that Bush will take out Bin Laden before his term in office expires. If he does, it'd deny the democrats a claim to victory in the war on terror that they have been advocating defeat in for so long.
I'm getting really tired of hearing about "government officials" releasing classified data to the press. Although I cannot recall all of the politically motivated leaks of classified information to the press, I think many of us will remember in 2006 when the NY Slimes released a story about the classified Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. I'm not saying that the Times should be held responsible, although that is a debatable point, I do think that there should be a serious investigation into where these leaks come from. The media and it's sources release this type of information in order to make a political point on the war but when they do, they put the operations referred to at risk as well as the lives of the men and women in the field who are carrying them out. According to the NY Post several scheduled operations had to be canceled due to the NY Times release of this information.
Bill Maher Comes Clean Thursday, October 16 @ 22:07:19 EDT by default
On Larry King tonight, Bill Maher announced that the country was becoming socialist (and that he's not only OK with it but he's clearly voting for it). Now that's one of the first substantive things I've heard him say in a very long time. Say, isn't socialism the mirror opposite of libertarianism? (for those who don't know, Maher proclaims himself to be a libertarian)
Mr. Maher, would you like to revise your statement? Sorry, but I don't like it when people tell bold faced lies and then they tell me how I need to live my life. Call me crazy.
10/17/2008 - Update:
OK, I've got the transcript. Funny thing is that the video is available from CNN's website but they cut out the portion that contains this footage! (In fairness I must mention that this exchange appears in the last 30 seconds or so of the interview) (to see CNN's edit that does not contain this footage click here) There are also copies of this on YouTube but they all appear to have been ripped from the edit available on CNN's website.
MAHER: ...This is what was great about the Clintons. You know, they were boring policy wonks, but they knew how government worked and they believed that government could work. (One of the basic libertarian beliefs is that government doesn't work!)
...
KING: ...Do you believe the polls?
Do you believe that he's this far ahead -- although, one Gallup poll today had it closer -- that Obama is this far ahead?
MAHER: Yes.
KING: Double digit ahead?
MAHER: Yes. But we should not become overconfident. ...But they're going to do it this time, because they understand, even the racists understand, yes, he's smarter.
...
MAHER: ...We do come a long way in a relatively short period of time -- relatively. I wish we could move faster, but that's me. I'm a crazy liberal. (A liberal libertarian? Is that like a conservative communist?)
...
---BEGIN PORTION CUT FROM VIDEO---
KING: Who's on tomorrow night on "Real Time?"
MAHER: We've got a good one. Ben Affleck, Martin Short, and Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, the only man in the Senate who used the word socialist.
KING: He is a socialist.
MAHER: I guess. We'll find out. What a perfect timing, now that the country is becoming socialist. He's been ahead of the pack, Larry.
---END TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS---
Now that is all that was said, and while I must admit it isn't as clear an admission as I remembered, what was said and the way it was said portrayed socialism as not only being OK with Maher but it sounds as if he is giving a compliment to Senator Bernie Sanders on being a socialist. I don't know if Maher is straight lying or if he simply doesn't want to admit that he's a socialist but combined with all of his extreme leftist views this quote should remove any doubt.
10/20/2008 - Update:
Take a look at Maher's political contributions from NEWSMEAT. There are only 5 listed but they are all to Democrats going back to John Kerry's bid for the presidency in '04. I doubt this stuff comes as a surprise to anyone but this guy needs to have the balls to come out and say who he is.
Anderson Cooper Runs Interference for the Democrats Tuesday, October 14 @ 08:45:35 EDT by default
Most of us political junkies know that regardless of which side of the isle you fall on that the current economic crisis has roots in the legislation that made sub-prime mortgages possible. Following the path from the root cause there are many organizations and individuals to point the finger at, but you will hear the term "sub-prime" mentioned in every argument.
Anderson Cooper of CNN now has a nightly segment called "Culprits of the Collapse". Collapse. Really… Liberals are so melodramatic. Anyway, he is tying together a list of names who he blames as the cause for our current economic situation and surprise, surprise; they all just happen to be Republicans and capitalists.
This is the list of names he has released so far:
#10
Joe Cassano
Financial Product division head of AIG
#9
Richard Fuld
CEO, Lehman Brothers
#8
Chris Cox (R)
Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
#7
Phil Gramm (R)
Former U.S. Senator from Texas
#6
Alan Greenspan (R)
Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States
#5
Ian McCarthy
President and CEO of Beazer Homes USA
#4
Angelo R. Mozilo
Former chairman of the board and CEO of Countrywide Financial
#3
James Cayne
Former CEO of Bear Stearns
#2
Franklin Raines
Former chairman and CEO of the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae
#1
You
Everyone (except Anderson Cooper)
Now these guys did play their role to be sure, but they are only players in a game in which the rules were set by liberal policy makers. This is a clear attempt at taking the crosshairs away from the Dems and pointing it back at some conservative faces at a time that is crucial to the election. It will be entertaining to watch how Mr. Cooper spins this web of misdirection. Suffice to say that if the names Christopher Dodd, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank aren’t mentioned, this list will prove itself to be a total crock. Anyone willing to place bets on who #1 will be? Do I hear Pres. Bush?
Stay tuned; I’m just starting to get interested enough to write an editorial linking together the real culprits we’ve all been hearing about for several weeks now. But the Fox News special, “Saving Our Economy” referred to on this site will shed light on many details if you have the time to watch.
October 26, 2008 - Update:
Culprits of the "Collapse"... Most of these guys are more like victims of the "collapse" who just happened to be in charge of large businesses connected to the sub-prime mortgage industry, excepting Franklin Raines of course but he wouldn't be no. 1 on my list. I really need to go into this and rebut these one by one...
I love Fox News Monday, August 25 @ 03:11:18 EDT by default
I gotta hand it to 'em for having the balls to put themselves into this situation. I believe that this kind of coverage is necessary to expose the ignorance of these kinds of people. You go Fox News.
This is Fox footage from an "anti-war" rally they were covering which was organized by an group that calls themselves "recreate 68". "recreate 68" claims to be a peaceful organization dedicated to stopping the Iraq War, but the organization's name references the riots of 1968 which were of course, anything but peaceful.
In my opinion these kinds of people simply hate any sort of authority and anyone who has more money than they do (and won't share) and will test the limits of the right to assemble and the right to free speech in an attempt to bring down those that have more than they do of either. It doesn't make much sense that groups like this get the cool image that they do; they're nothing more than a bunch of imbeciles boldly displaying their adolescent views on society. Proudly displaying their lack of intelligence for all to see like a morbidly obese woman in a bikini. But American politics were founded on rebellion. Being a rebel will always be cool in the United States. What people need to learn is that being cool doesn't solve problems. But then again, are these guys really interested in solving any?
Out of respect for my friends I must mention that I obviously enjoy a little rebellion now and then. But there's a difference between being a rebel and being an idiot. If you hate authority and are generally anti-establishment, good for you. But if you vote for bigger government then you aren't only stupid; you're handing power to those you hate on a silver platter.
"... A reader would also search in vain for any talk of a "fiscal crisis" or a need to balance nuclear weapons priorities with available revenues. That same reader, of course, rarely has to venture past the first sentence of a health care reform story to find that the subject is a "trillion dollar overhaul." (Oh hold on, it gets better.)
March 4, 2010 - Update:
On Larry King tonight, Bill Maher announced that the country was becoming socialist (and that he's not only OK with it but he's clearly voting for it). Now that's one of the first substantive things I've heard him say in a very long time. Say, isn't socialism the mirror opposite of libertarianism? (for those who don't know, Maher proclaims himself to be a libertarian)
