2.01.2010
Consumer Reports Recalls 4 Million Magazines
Ya know, I've always looked at Consumer Reports as a skeptic as they constantly recommended Japanese cars that looked almost exactly the same with no originality (Accord, Camry... Camry, Accord). Now that Toyota is recalling half of their fleet, can we also recall Consumer Reports?
3 Thoughts
If you still believe that FDR didn't greatly extend the Depression, then just observe what's happening today.
Liberal government... always better in theory than in practice. Mark Steyn
The Grammys were revealing, all fluff, no substance. These were the people who elected Obama... see the connection?
Liberal government... always better in theory than in practice. Mark Steyn
The Grammys were revealing, all fluff, no substance. These were the people who elected Obama... see the connection?
1.26.2010
Ladies and Gentlemen!
Testing 1, 2, 3. Mike check. Hello? Testing. <* clears throat *>
Ladies and Gentlemen! Your education has certainly suffered during the past 8 years. But I'm here to change that.... bringing what's called NEW MATH to Washington, where 4 million lost jobs equals a gain of 2 million (saved or created, or saved, or created, or created/saved), where taxes raised on health care, cigarettes, and the repealing of the Bush tax cuts equals a tax break on the middle class. Where thousands of government employees now making for the first time over $175k equals cutting back and reducing the deficit, while the debt ceiling has been raised (hallelujah) to over 14 trillion. And did I mention that bankers (one industry making a profit) are evil?
2 3 4
I’m gonna blame Bush forever, forever & ever amen
As long as old men sit & talk about the weather
As long as old women sit & talk about old men
If you wonder how long I’ll be blaming him
I’ll be happy to tell you again
I'm gonna blame Bush, forever & ever, forever & ever amen
I’m gonna blame Bush forever, forever & ever amen
As long as old men sit & talk about the weather
As long as old women sit & talk about old men
If you wonder how long I’ll be blaming him
I’ll be happy to tell you again
I'm gonna blame Bush, forever & ever, forever & ever amen
You may think that I’m acting foolish
You’ve heard that I’m new & I’m green
You may wonder how I can promise you now
We’ll spend a trillion dollars while we still owe three
And it’s not my blood that is spilling
When I give up memos of the CIA
It’s not my money that I will be spending
On every left-wing program that enters my brain
one more time
I’m gonna blame Bush forever, forever & ever amen
As long as old men sit & talk about the weather
As long as old women sit & talk about old men
If you wonder how long I’ll be blaming him
I’ll be happy to tell you again
I'm gonna blame Bush, forever & ever, forever & ever amen
You’ve heard that I’m new & I’m green
You may wonder how I can promise you now
We’ll spend a trillion dollars while we still owe three
And it’s not my blood that is spilling
When I give up memos of the CIA
It’s not my money that I will be spending
On every left-wing program that enters my brain
one more time
I’m gonna blame Bush forever, forever & ever amen
As long as old men sit & talk about the weather
As long as old women sit & talk about old men
If you wonder how long I’ll be blaming him
I’ll be happy to tell you again
I'm gonna blame Bush, forever & ever, forever & ever amen
Okay - are we done here? Can we just let the computer deliver the speech next time? All the words are in there already, so why do I have to actually speak them? I'll form a committee to look into that. Thank you very much.
1.23.2010
Recklessly Courting Disaster
"You should not be reading this book. I should not have been able to write it."
Courting Disaster by Marc A. Thiessen
Few know more about these CIA operations than Thiessen, and in his new book, Courting Disaster, he documents just how effective the CIA’s interrogations were in foiling attacks on America, penetrating al-Qaeda’s high command, and providing our military with actionable intelligence. Thiessen also shows how reckless President Obama has been in shutting down the CIA’s program and releasing secret documents that have aided our enemies.
Courting Disaster by Marc A. Thiessen
Few know more about these CIA operations than Thiessen, and in his new book, Courting Disaster, he documents just how effective the CIA’s interrogations were in foiling attacks on America, penetrating al-Qaeda’s high command, and providing our military with actionable intelligence. Thiessen also shows how reckless President Obama has been in shutting down the CIA’s program and releasing secret documents that have aided our enemies.
1.22.2010
Score One for the First Amendment
here are a couple of excerpts from today's ruling that makes ridiculous Government intervention to trample free speech seem silly. Schumer, and Obama, they'll disagree loudly:“It’s poisonous. It’s poisonous to our democracy,” Schumer said. “This threatens the viability of our democracy.”
But those who support Democrats look carefully... these politicians want to prohibit free speech, except from those organizations they deem fit. Free Speech is for everybody! Even corporations (oh my!).
My excerpts:
If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. If the antidistortion rationale were to be accepted, however, it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form. The Government contends that Austin permits it to ban corporate expenditures for almost all forms of communication stemming from a corporation. See Part II-E, supra; Tr. of Oral Arg. 66 (Sept. 9, 2009); see also id., at 26-31 (Mar. 24, 2009). If Austin were correct, the Government could prohibit a corporation from expressing political views in media beyond those presented here, such as by printing books. The Government responds "that the FEC has never applied this statute to abook," and if it did, "there would be quite [a] good as-applied challenge." Tr. of Oral Arg. 65 (Sept. 9, 2009). This troubling assertion of brooding governmental power cannot be reconciled with the confidence and stability in civic discourse that the First Amendment must secure.
Political speech is "indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual." pg 33
###
The law's exception for media corporations is, on its own terms, all but an admission of the invalidity of the antidistortion rationale. And the exemption results in a further, separate reason for finding this law invalid: Again by its own terms, the law exempts some corporations but covers others, even though both have the need or the motive to communicate their views. The exemption applies to media corporations owned or controlled by corporations that have diverse and substantial investments and participate in endeavors other than news. So even assuming the most doubtful proposition that a news organization has a right to speak when others do not, the exemption would allow a conglomerate that owns both a media business and an unrelated business to influence or control the media in order to advance its overall business interest. At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue. This differential treatment cannot be squaredwith the First Amendment. pg 36
to learn more:
http://bigjournalism.com/f
But those who support Democrats look carefully... these politicians want to prohibit free speech, except from those organizations they deem fit. Free Speech is for everybody! Even corporations (oh my!).
My excerpts:
If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. If the antidistortion rationale were to be accepted, however, it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form. The Government contends that Austin permits it to ban corporate expenditures for almost all forms of communication stemming from a corporation. See Part II-E, supra; Tr. of Oral Arg. 66 (Sept. 9, 2009); see also id., at 26-31 (Mar. 24, 2009). If Austin were correct, the Government could prohibit a corporation from expressing political views in media beyond those presented here, such as by printing books. The Government responds "that the FEC has never applied this statute to abook," and if it did, "there would be quite [a] good as-applied challenge." Tr. of Oral Arg. 65 (Sept. 9, 2009). This troubling assertion of brooding governmental power cannot be reconciled with the confidence and stability in civic discourse that the First Amendment must secure.
Political speech is "indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual." pg 33
###
The law's exception for media corporations is, on its own terms, all but an admission of the invalidity of the antidistortion rationale. And the exemption results in a further, separate reason for finding this law invalid: Again by its own terms, the law exempts some corporations but covers others, even though both have the need or the motive to communicate their views. The exemption applies to media corporations owned or controlled by corporations that have diverse and substantial investments and participate in endeavors other than news. So even assuming the most doubtful proposition that a news organization has a right to speak when others do not, the exemption would allow a conglomerate that owns both a media business and an unrelated business to influence or control the media in order to advance its overall business interest. At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue. This differential treatment cannot be squaredwith the First Amendment. pg 36
to learn more:
http://bigjournalism.com/f
1.20.2010
Obama Spin of the Decade
President Obama said today that the anger that elected Brown is the same anger that elected him.
"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." LINK
And we know that "the past 8 years" is code for anti-Bush... think post-hypnotic suggestion, and triggered response, etc. This has to be the spin of the year (and there have been so many)... to tie the Brown victory into the same anti-Bush sentiment that got Obama elected. Bravo. Another great day for creative writing. In other words, Obama is just like Brown. The people's man. Never mind the fact that he was there campaigning for Coakley, and that Brown stands in opposition to Obamacare etc.
Also, may I say that simply voting for Brown doesn't indicate anger, or frustration. Could be that many people were voting calmly and in peace out of happiness to finally have someone to vote for who gets it. Would the same be said if most voted for Coakley? Would that be out of anger and frustration? Those that vote Republican are called "angry." More spin.
"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." LINK
And we know that "the past 8 years" is code for anti-Bush... think post-hypnotic suggestion, and triggered response, etc. This has to be the spin of the year (and there have been so many)... to tie the Brown victory into the same anti-Bush sentiment that got Obama elected. Bravo. Another great day for creative writing. In other words, Obama is just like Brown. The people's man. Never mind the fact that he was there campaigning for Coakley, and that Brown stands in opposition to Obamacare etc.
Also, may I say that simply voting for Brown doesn't indicate anger, or frustration. Could be that many people were voting calmly and in peace out of happiness to finally have someone to vote for who gets it. Would the same be said if most voted for Coakley? Would that be out of anger and frustration? Those that vote Republican are called "angry." More spin.
1.19.2010
Coakley Polls
Main Stream Media Spin alert: if Scott Brown wins tonight, be assured that it'll be all about how Martha Coakley ran a poor race... in fact it has already been set up that way, despite the fact that her liberal speech is indistinguishable from any other Democrat in the Senate. And it will not have anything to do with Scott Brown and his talent in winning the debate and connecting with the actual people he hopes to represent.
Amazing but true, the media misses the mark in Boston. However, one can't forget the old "this election was stolen" angle. In case of a loss, don't accept the results.
Amazing but true, the media misses the mark in Boston. However, one can't forget the old "this election was stolen" angle. In case of a loss, don't accept the results.
“We have seen a number of disturbing incidents this evening that have called into question the integrity of this election,” Coakley campaign manager Kevin Conroy said.That'll take at least 6 weeks to sort out, eh? And then magically, Coakley, just like Pat Paulsen... er, Al Franken, will end up on top.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
