February 29, 2008
Posted at 06:53 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Ogre at Saturday, March 01 2008 09:42 AM (9qaYA)
Posted by: GM Roper at Saturday, March 01 2008 08:10 PM (S60yG)
Posted by: Ogre at Monday, March 03 2008 02:35 PM (oifEm)
Posted by: Caps at Thursday, November 11 2010 07:06 PM (a2TTR)
Posted by: fendi peekaboo bag at Thursday, December 16 2010 09:02 PM (U9YhK)
I won't elaborate on the article linked below, as it speaks for itself in regards to the bitter Red Sox - Yankees rivalry; plus, the picture of the kid as the end of the article is so cute, as he gives it back to Steinbrenner. His parents must be as proud of him as George Steinbrenner is of his son.
Baby Boss: Red Sox Nation “A Bunch Of Bull****”
Authored by Woody
Posted at 12:20 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Caps at Thursday, November 11 2010 07:06 PM (a2TTR)
Posted by: fendi peekaboo bag at Thursday, December 16 2010 09:02 PM (U9YhK)
Posted by: Office 2010 key at Tuesday, February 15 2011 01:39 AM (ccv7l)
Posted by: acupuncture for infertility fl at Monday, June 13 2011 02:07 AM (PKq7S)
Some materials like softwood have enough natural lignins inside them that work as a binder. But other materials need to have some kind of binder added. These are typically organic materials like vegetable oil, flour and corn starch.
Posted by: pellet mill progressing at Wednesday, July 06 2011 08:43 PM (svodH)
Some of the equipment offered by Hoshizaki includes: ice makers, flake ice machines, filtration, storage, ice dispensers, preparation tables, refrigerated displays, remote condensed units, stands, water dispensers, countertop and undercounter fridges.
Posted by: pellet mill progressing at Sunday, July 24 2011 09:21 PM (Q3mbi)
ah hah,m4v to wmv converteris currently the most powerful but easy-to-use software which can convert M4V to WMV as well as convert M4V to other mainstream and portable devices with super fast speed and excellent image and sound quality. M4V to WMV Converter is a three-in-one software which can be used as a video converter, audio converter, and DRM Remover. To pay for one software, you will get three functional tools
Posted by: 250ruth at Thursday, July 28 2011 02:01 AM (0Eg0o)
Posted by: GHD Australia Cheap at Thursday, November 10 2011 02:42 AM (bQiUe)
February 28, 2008
1961 - Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine
From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald Reagan speaks out against socialized medicine.
Ronald Reagan, before he ran for elected office, called the Democrats' proposal for national health care a "Foot in the Door Philosophy." Now, we're facing the same problem today. The federal health care programs that Democrats claim to want are not the programs that they ultimately want to force. Americans would surely reject the final product if they could look forward and see its costs, failures, and impact on personal freedoms. You've been advised.
Authored by Woody
Posted at 12:30 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.
What kind of conservatives are you?
Posted by: jim hitchcock at Thursday, February 28 2008 12:45 PM (hfBAo)
Posted by: Woody at Thursday, February 28 2008 12:51 PM (Eb/8J)
Posted by: jim hitchcock at Thursday, February 28 2008 02:23 PM (hfBAo)
Posted by: Woody at Thursday, February 28 2008 03:20 PM (Eb/8J)
Posted by: jim hitchcock at Thursday, February 28 2008 04:07 PM (hfBAo)
Posted by: jim hitchcock at Thursday, February 28 2008 04:26 PM (hfBAo)
I'm glad that baseball season is starting. I commented the other night how this was a terrible time with football over and baseball not started. I only get involved with basketball during March madness. I dropped my hockey tickets two years ago, but I did renew my Braves tickets. On the Braves web site, they have a countdown clock until opening day--now just 31 days.
I see that this is the last spring training for the Dodgers at Dodger Town in Florida, as they will move next year to Arizona. The Braves will also move their AAA affiliate to a suburb in 2009, so sending players up or down is just a commute.
Ronald Reagan was a baseball fan.
Posted by: Woody at Thursday, February 28 2008 06:39 PM (Eb/8J)
Posted by: jim hitchcock at Thursday, February 28 2008 07:08 PM (hfBAo)
I seem to remember a story where the wire went down when Reagan was doing one of his "live on-site broadcasts." It's sketchy, but I think that he made up some innings until the wire was restored.
I heard about others doing the same thing, and one guy had the score higher than it really was, so he resorted to saying that they took away some runs. Another time, a broadcaster had the wrong team coming to bat when the wire came back, so he said that it was a first in baseball for a team to bat twice in a row.
Jim, did you listen to Reagan's message above? He could just about do the same one today.
Posted by: Woody at Thursday, February 28 2008 08:46 PM (Eb/8J)
Posted by: jim hitchcock at Friday, February 29 2008 10:00 AM (hfBAo)
Jim, well, look at his picture and tell me what you think. A picture is worth a thousand words.
It turns out that the Braves lost the Spring training game to the Dodgers because the Braves aren't trying. http://rowlandsoffice.typepad.com/weblog/2008/02/bad-signs.html
Posted by: Woody at Friday, February 29 2008 11:12 AM (Eb/8J)
Posted by: Caps at Thursday, November 11 2010 07:06 PM (a2TTR)
Posted by: fendi peekaboo bag at Thursday, December 16 2010 09:02 PM (U9YhK)
Yeah, this is how concerned the Democrats are about keeping down the price of gas for "working families"--just tax the heck out of oil companies for them to pass that tax to the consumers in the form of higher gas prices.
The House approved $18 billion in new taxes on the largest oil companies Wednesday as Democrats cited record oil prices and rising gasoline costs in a time of economic troubles. Senate Democratic leaders said they would put the bill on a fast track and try to avoid a Republican filibuster.
I wish Democrats had studied more economics, but, on the other hand, many seem to have majored in Marxism.
Authored by Woody
Posted at 11:00 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: DADvocate at Thursday, February 28 2008 09:10 PM (cqPnb)
The 12th commandment of the Republican Party is:
Thou Shalt Not Accept Responsiblity for What Happens on Your Watch.
Posted by: McLovin at Friday, February 29 2008 05:58 AM (eN5/Z)
I said it when Clinton was President and I'll say it now: "The President of the United States has very little effect on the economy. Blaming or congratulating a president for the state of the economy is as fruitless as spitting into the wind; and just about as effective." Of course, that never stops the left or the right from trying to take responsibility for the economy, or push the responsibility onto the "enemy."
Take a real look at the way the Republicans spent like drunken sailors, and take a look at the way the Democrats are doing the exact same thing.
Ropers corillary to McLovin's "12th Commandment for the Republican Party" is that "Little minds leap to blame the other guy FIRST."
Posted by: GM Roper at Friday, February 29 2008 07:57 AM (1fjXG)
Posted by: Woody at Friday, February 29 2008 08:57 AM (Eb/8J)
Posted by: DADvocate at Friday, February 29 2008 02:24 PM (AIolm)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&refer=home&sid=aFyT0fu5KFeM
Exxon Profit Rises as Oil Surges Toward $100 a Barrel
"Profit for all of 2007 was $40.6 billion, topping Exxon Mobil's own record for full-year earnings by any U.S. company. "
Somehow, I don't think they're suffering too much. Exxon could pay the whole $18 billion by themselves and still have more cash on hand than they could possibly know what to do with.
Posted by: e. nonee moose at Friday, February 29 2008 04:08 PM (/HV/W)
Moose, did you know that EXXON alone pays more taxes than the top 50% of individual taxpayers put together? Maybe I should say that they pass along those taxes in higher gas, which is the truth.
Posted by: Woody at Friday, February 29 2008 04:46 PM (Eb/8J)
The president has little direct effect on the economy but has an enormous impact on framing discussions and shaping the outlook.
Why do you think bond traders hang on every word the president utters. They know the president is key to shaping the economic agenda and, long term, to determing the outcome.
GM has overlooked the role of leadership.
Presidents cannot be effective leaders unless they insist on taking responsiblity, even for things they don't fully control.
Clinton stepped up and publically accepted responsibility for the economy and this inspired confidence in his leadership. He didn't try to blame Reagan or Bush for the massive deficits he had to pay down, even though they were clearly their fault. This is what leaders do: they accept responsibility for fixing things, even when they haven't directly caused a problem.
Granted, that's politics, not policy and the presidents powers to steer the economy are limited. But I would argue that Bush has squandered his by allowing his overall credibility to dwindle to dangerously low levels.
His comments on the economy have tracked those on the war in Iraq--a long, unbroken record of unwarranted optimism. When he says he thinks the economy's doing a "heckuva job" no one believes him. That's not leadership and that's not good for the country. Clinton did a lot better on that score.
Posted by: McLovin at Friday, February 29 2008 06:04 PM (eN5/Z)
McLovin, you have GOT to be kidding me. Framing a discussion counts more than the FACTS about a discussion? Oh PUH-LEZE!!!
"Clinton stepped up and publically accepted responsibility for the economy..."
What planet were you living on in January - September, 2001 when Clinton (both of them) blasted Bush for the poor performing economy when the problems that the economy had (at least those not exacerbated by 9/11) from the burst bubble of the Clinton's years of "exuberance?"
Tell your tales to someone who doesn't remember beyond the last two years!
Posted by: GM Roper at Friday, February 29 2008 06:42 PM (S60yG)
GM, I don't recall Clinton blaming Bush in September 2001.
Perhaps you've misunderstood criticism of tax cuts with blame for the slowing economy. Can you cite any examples of what you're talking about?
I do recall Bush's supporters blaming Clinton for the bad economy under Bush. That's still happening today.
Republicans never accept responsibility for anything that happens on their watch. Even 9/11 is supposedly Clinton's fault. The failure in Iraq? Blame the news media, of course.
Like I said. Republicans only rarely accept responsiblity for anything that happens on their watch, unless it's good, of course. I think you can say the same for Democrats, of course, to be fair.
And GM has also misunderstood my comments. I in no way suggested that framing matters more than facts. I simply said that presidents have the power to frame the discussion of the economy, which is important.
Posted by: McLovin at Friday, February 29 2008 07:03 PM (eN5/Z)
Posted by: Woody at Friday, February 29 2008 07:39 PM (Eb/8J)
Making the cost of operation increase for Exxon sure isn't going to lower gas prices! The only thing it will do is make a few imbeciles feel good because they're "hurting" some big corporation that is self-supporting and runs more efficiently than our government.
And, what's Congress's big issue? Steroids in baseball and investigating Roger Clemens. Give me a break!!!
Posted by: DADvocate at Friday, February 29 2008 07:48 PM (cqPnb)
Posted by: Woody at Friday, February 29 2008 09:20 PM (Eb/8J)
Woody: so are you with GM in believing that presidents have no responsibility for what happens to the economy on their watch?
Or are you suggesting that Clinton should accept responsiblity for the state of the economy on his watch?
Only in the most technical sense was the economy in recession in the final months of the Clinton administration. There is a ongoing debate among economists about whether it was a recession even under the technical definition of two successive declines in the growth rate.
But it is good to compare the economic performance of Clinton to Bush or Reagan, for that matter.
Clinton presided over the longest series of continuous growth in American history. More jobs were created under Clinton than at any time in American history. The average quarterly GDP growth was more than 20 percent faster under Clinton than under Reagan, and about 50 percent faster than under Bush, so far.
Do the math, Woody. The economic performance under Clinton was spectacular. You can argue that he had nothing to do with it, in which case your point about slowing growth in the final quarters of his administration is irrelevant, but you can't deny that the performance was by far better than under any Republican administration in our lifetime.
Posted by: McLovin at Friday, February 29 2008 09:59 PM (eN5/Z)
McLovin, I suspect then that you will read ALL of these articles:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20227
“All I know is 18 months ago, we had a surplus"
- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
“These people ran on responsibility, but as soon as you scratch them
they go straight to blame,'' Clinton responded in a recent television
interview. ''Now, you know, I didn't blame his father for Somalia. I
didn't do that."
- Former President Bill Clinton
Stiglitz Discredited Democrats' Claim That Bush Administration Is
Responsible For Recession. Stiglitz noted that during the Clinton
Administration "the groundwork for some of the problems we are now experiencing was being laid. Accounting standards slipped;
deregulation was taken further than it should have been; and corporate greed was pandered to ...."
(Joseph Stiglitz, "The Roaring Nineties," The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)
http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research030803.htm
“Under the Clinton Administration, the markets had been booming. We saw growth in an unprecedented way and we expected - everyone expected - that growth to continue. But that's not what happened. What happened instead was over the last 18 months, that $16.4 trillion pie has shrunk to $11.9 trillion. We've lost $4.5 trillion in market capitalization in just 18 months.” [Congressional Record, 9/18/02] U.S. Senate
http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/ec092402.htm
I won't do any more research for you, I can't help it if you don't remember how the dems trashed Bush I also will note that the Repubs have trashed dems... BOTH are wrong, the Prez DOES NOT HAVE THAT MUCH POWER.... PERIOD!!!!
Posted by: GM Roper at Saturday, March 01 2008 09:55 AM (CglRh)
Mac, I stated a fact. You drew your own conlusions from it. Yes, we were technically in a recession when Clinton left office. There is no confusion about that. It's a fact! You are among the crowd who doesn't know what the definition of "is" is.
If Clinton wants to take credit for growth, then let him take credit for leaving office with us in a recession.
However, I don't consider the dotcom bubble to be a result of Clinton economics. It's luck in the timing of his presidency and Bill Gates should get most of the credit--and, Al Gore for inventing the internet.
I don't blame Bush for the economic diaster following 9-11. It's amazing, frankly, that our country rebounded as it did...and, we didn't tax ourselves into recovery but gave tax breaks.
Also, despite your wish and the claims of liberal media, we are not in a recession right now, technically or otherwise, although such talk undermines confidence and can create one, as is intended.
You're really not very good at arguments. You just alter the discussion and play loose with the facts. Ann Coulter must have met you. 'How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)'
Posted by: Woody at Saturday, March 01 2008 10:25 AM (Eb/8J)
Let me draw an analogy.... If a pitcher has some good innings and gets bat support, he might have a 5-0 lead in the sixth inning. But, then he gives up some walks, hits a batter, is charged with a wild pitch, gives up some bloopers, and then someone knocks a grand slam...well, now he has lost his five run lead and is behind by four runs. He's pulled, and the ball is turned over to a reliever, who has to fight to get back the lead. Should the starter get credit for a win in that case?
It's not selected accomplishments in the middle innings that count. It's who's ahead when you leave the game.
Posted by: Woody at Saturday, March 01 2008 12:11 PM (Eb/8J)
Economic growth under Clinton averaged about 3.8 percent a year, higher than any president since Johnson. Personal income grew 50 percent faster than under Bush I and TWICE as fast as under Bush II, so far. More jobs were added to the economy than at any time in American history.
This isn't baseball, Woody, it's math. Do the math and get back to me.
If you knew anything at all about economics, you would know the dot.com bubble did almost nothing to contribute to economic growth.
Soaring stock prices doesn't add anything to economic growth. Sure, it gives people confidence and THAT helps the economy, but the dot.com bubble itself adds nothing.
To suggest that the record period of growth under Clinton is the result of the dot.com bubble is to be ignorant of basic economics..
Posted by: McLovin at Saturday, March 01 2008 05:43 PM (eN5/Z)
Posted by: Woody at Saturday, March 01 2008 06:58 PM (Eb/8J)
Posted by: Caps at Thursday, November 11 2010 07:06 PM (a2TTR)
Posted by: fendi peekaboo bag at Thursday, December 16 2010 09:02 PM (U9YhK)

( No, that isn't a picture of Wm. Buckley. It's his subject.)
Posted by Woody
Posted at 10:30 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Caps at Thursday, November 11 2010 07:06 PM (a2TTR)
Posted by: fendi peekaboo bag at Thursday, December 16 2010 09:02 PM (U9YhK)
February 26, 2008
What kids learn in public schools has changed over the past thirty years. Some blame the students and everything else but a main cause - changing emphasis on what is taught and why.
Here's a recent survey of 1,200 students:
• 43% knew the Civil War was fought between 1850 and 1900.
• 52% could identify the theme of 1984.
• 97% could identify Martin Luther King Jr. as author of the "I Have a Dream" speech
The last is good, but the first two are bad signs. We need to learn new history, but we don't need to wipe out the old history that is helpful.
Political correctness and an anti-Western attitude in academics have led educators to modify and leave out facts that many of us used to learn. For example, and I've mentioned this before, my son's high school U.S. history book had less than one page for World War II, but it had full page pictures of Bill Clinton and Maya Angelou. Back in the seventies, I found that the changes in a history book from one year to the next dropped patriot Nathan Hale and replaced him with poet Phillis Wheatley. That was just a start to the complete revision to suit left-wing textbook committees.
If we keep this up, there won't be a generation left that was taught important issues in our nation's history. Such information will be lost in the minds of people forever along with the lessons that serve to guide us as a people.
I have little faith that this negative trend in public schools can be stopped. But thankfully, active parents in their kids' schools and homeschools retain some hope for us.
Authored by Woody
Posted at 12:10 PM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.
Ironic that awareness of 1984 is questioned. In Orwell's book it was believed that he that controls the past also controls the future. Consequently great efforts were made by the ruling authorities to destroy the past by rewriting history to satisfy the dictates of Big Brother.
Ron Brown
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Posted by: Ron Brown at Tuesday, February 26 2008 01:05 PM (1geka)
GM claims there's some kind of "anti-Western" agenda in American public schools.
What's anti-Western about Bill Clinton, Maya Angelou and Phillis Wheatley?
It is a shocker, though, that you son's history textbook only included one page on World War II. What can you say about it in a single page?
In reality, all history textbooks are flawed and the amount of time available to the average high school student to learn history is woefully inadequate.
If I were teaching history in high school, I'd make clear that the most important thing to understand is that we are only scratching the surface in our textbooks and other materials. To know and understand history requires far more in depth study and focus than are practical for high school students.
Given GM's biases, I assume he would prefer high schools teach the "facts" that he believes support a right-wing worldview.
Posted by: McLovin at Tuesday, February 26 2008 04:12 PM (eN5/Z)
Posted by: Scrapiron at Tuesday, February 26 2008 05:52 PM (+eO2c)
In Orwell's 1984, the government destroys written evidence of history it doesn't like.
On this blog, GM bowdlerizes excerpts to destroy evidence of history that contradicts his partisan claims.
The link cited in his post above isn't to the study itself, but rather to a USA Today report on the study. The report includes the following lines:
``51% knew that the controversy surrounding Sen. Joseph McCarthy focused on communism.''
``88% knew the bombing of Pearl Harbor led the USA into World War II''
Why did GM edit out those stats?
Moreover, the report says:
``The nation's current focus on improving basic reading and math skills in elementary school might only make matters worse, giving short shrift to the humanities — even if children can read and do math.''
Could it be that the report actually contradicts GM's talking point about how liberals have taken over education? So his response was to cut out the parts he didn't like, just like the government did in 1984. Beautiful…
Posted by: Hal E. Burton at Tuesday, February 26 2008 06:47 PM (UvT8A)
First of all, let me posit that my commenters McL... and Hal have a deficiency in reading comprehension. They must have gone to the schools that they claim are terrific in terms of teaching humanities etc. Had they better comprehension of what they read, or, better yet had they not their own biases to overcome, they would have noted that the article is authored by and the point of view is WOODY's.
Woody and I don't see eye to eye on education in many respects. I do however note that we also do agree in many respects. I also don't censor what the Woodster chooses to write about.
I attended school from 1952 (first grade) through '64 (H.S.) and obtained my Bachelors degree in 69, masters in 73 and an additional 30 hours grad work between 78 and 94 just for the fun of attending school. I also taught at the University level from 1987 through 2005 (till sidelined by cancer). I can state, categorically that the college freshman of the last dozen years was less prepared than the average high school freshman or sophomore when I was in high school. I have had some grad students who couldn't spell or put 4 interconnected sentences together to save their lives. I've had college seniors who read at a 8th grade level, if that. I have had grad students fail take home exams where all 100 questions were taken directly from the chapters indicated because they lacked the ability to discern what the question was asking.
I won't go on and on about the the educational problems of today, some of it is directly due to the Teachers Unions protecting incompetent teachers, but most are dedicated, hard working and very competent. I won't blame the parents, though it is difficult for me to imagine parents who cannot fathom the need to monitor the students work, take an interest in their education or meet with the teachers and acknowledge that their kid was a brat and not attack the teacher for "having it in for little Johnny." My beloved daughter is a teacher, as was my sister and my mother and I've heard the horror stories from all three about the difficulties of getting students to study or the parents to get involved.
Of course, without parent involvement, and a thorough review of texts, any publisher can add any detail to any text they wish, and most parents won't know, because they can't be bothered.
Hal, McLovin, you both have a D - on your reading skills and a flat F for your bias control abilities.
Posted by: GM Roper at Tuesday, February 26 2008 08:02 PM (S60yG)
GM: Maybe you should consider removing the "I am GM Roper and I Approve This Message'' tagline. Whatever you might say about my reading comprehension, you might consider that your failure to understand, apparently, the meaning of those words raises questions about your own.
I don't doubt, however, that the bottom end of the lowest common denominator for school kids is lower today than it was in the 1950s and 1960s.
A large part of that is simple demographics In those days, the poorest people were less likely to even send their kid to school, while the lower middle class was much less economically and socially precarious than it is today:
The key is that in the 1950s and 1960s, American manufacturing still had a magnificent edge in terms of cost and technical development over all global rivals. That meant that we could have a large number of low and medium-skill jobs that paid wages that were good enough and steady enough to allow a single wage earner to support the whole family.
The vast majority of today's families, especially poor families, can only get by if both parents work. This leaves a lot less time and energy for helping kids with homework and, just as important, means the kids fend for themselves after school--to often that means they play video games or hang out with older kids until the parents get home.
It's just silly to blame every little thing on liberals. I wonder why wingnuts never seem to get bored with that.
Posted by: Hal E. Burton at Tuesday, February 26 2008 09:29 PM (UvT8A)
In looking at the fonts, was Hal E. Burton's comment on #4 written on a typewriter, and how did he do that? It's like Dan Rather, having a document prepared by a computer that is almost passable for being typed.
Hal, the article only led me to write about a problem in education. The ideas in the post were not limited to that one article. If you want more evidence of the failures of public schools, it shouldn't take thirty seconds, but everyone I know is already aware of them.
It's been a while, but I remember when Stanford was under great pressure by the liberals to drop Western Civ and replace it with World History, as if Western Civ was a white man's culture that is no better than the rest. Suddenly schools everywhere were copying them and changing studies to empahsize other cultures at the expense of dropping important issues in our own.
Further, the California Textbook Committee (very liberal) is the largest purchaser of textbooks in the nation and calls the shots on what publishers offer to the rest of the nation. If something is not multi-cultural enough, then that publisher is going to be hurt, so left-wing it is. This extends beyond history books and even goes into math books--yes, it's true, even though that took some creativity.
Thankfully, my sone had a teacher who he said was a lot like me and whose father was a CPA, so he covered U.S. history from handouts that he had prepared over the years, which were more scholarly and complete--even though Bill Clinton's full page picture was left out.
Posted by: Woody at Wednesday, February 27 2008 09:30 AM (Eb/8J)
Posted by: jim hitchcock at Wednesday, February 27 2008 10:48 AM (V81pd)
I grew up in a conservative household. Dad hated Kennedy and his view on Nixon was "he didn't do anything everyone else isn't doing.''
School was conservative too and everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the history of Vietnam as a noble cause bred the assumption that America was always the good guy, without question, beyond question.
When I got to college, I started reading beyond the textbook. At that time, I was rigorously apolitical and focused pretty tightly on sports, girls and parties. But just in the course of spending more time studying, I happened to start reading books about poverty in America and so on.
I was shocked, and really dismayed, to learn that, in fact, America was not blameless in all matters geopolitical. We lied. We cheated. We killed because we could and for reasons that were far less holy than I had always assumed.
I was still naive, of course, having just begun on my journey toward a real education (and away from the fake one obtained in high school).
As a result, I became something of a left wingnut. America was the god that failed. We weren't perfect and, in fact, much of the history taught in high school was actually fraudulent. The Communists didn't start the war in Vietnam. The Soviet Union wasn't behind every civil war in the world. Communists were not lurking in every newspaper, library and Hollywood movie set, waiting to take over the government.
So, in my naive way, I assumed that if the right wing pablum delivered in high school was wrong, all the counter information must be right.
By the time I exited the university system, I had begun to have a broader view and understanding of the flow of history. I was still mostly a left wingnut, but I had just begun to start to understand that objecting to demonization of, for example, Nicaragua's government, didn't have to be the same as supporting Nicaragua's government.
Most university students follow a similar path: they get angry that the history they were taught in high school is risibly lop-sided in favor of America, and react by focusing on their newly acquired evidence that the establishment line is bullshit. Then, eventually, they learn to take a more nuanced view and to appreciate the complexity and focus on dilineating shades of gray, rather than black and white.
The point of all this is that lop-sided pro-American history lessons are the single biggest reason for left wingnuts. It sets up a straw man that a good number of people never let go of all their life. They stroll right into adulthood thinknig that because the U.S. is far less holy than advertised, it must be evil.
Posted by: McLovin at Wednesday, February 27 2008 03:37 PM (eN5/Z)
I'm seriously disappointed that they did so poorly in identifying when the Civil War occurred.
I looked up the study report http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27576,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
there were some significant differences between kids with college educated parents and those without which shows the importance of parents in education.
Posted by: DADvocate at Wednesday, February 27 2008 05:29 PM (aWU31)
Posted by: Woody at Thursday, February 28 2008 08:59 AM (Eb/8J)
What ``flaws'' were those, Woody?
As I mentioned, my discovery that real American history wasn't as glorious and one-sided as presented in high school came from reading books on my own, not from any classes at all in university.
I do recall from college that my economics professor was more or less obsessed with proving that socialism was bad. When I transferred from junior college to university, I found the same thing: the economics professor made wild claims like: auto safety would improve if there were daggers mounted onto the steering wheel, so seat-belt laws are counterproductive, as they encourage risk taking.
But I freely chose to attend a private university that was openly committed to right-wing christian values. I had been an enthusiastic believer before enrolling there and much of what I saw--the hypocrisy and unexamined assumptions--turned me off of the religion completely.
I'd be interested to hear about your educational background, Woody, and how you ended up becoming a right-winger. Did you get it straight from your parents? Pick it up in college? Discover it in later life?
Posted by: McLovin at Thursday, February 28 2008 03:26 PM (eN5/Z)
I should add:
At the right-wing university, I minored in political science and as part of that took a class on the history of socialism. The professor was a brilliant orator and made great sport of smacking down the many and vocal Reaganites in the class. He also told a good story.
He had traveled widely as a scholar, including to countries then known as the Eastern Bloc. He had become friends with a high-level government official/academic in Czechoslovakia and one day had been discussing with him the education of their children. The Czech said surely he would send his son to university in Paris, even though the expense would be great. The American professor was shocked. "Why would you send him to the Sorbonne, a citidel of capitalism, when you could send him for free to the University of Moscow, where he will study with the finest minds in all of the Soviet sphere.''
``I want to make sure he's a good communist,'' the Czech replied. ``If I send him to Moscow, he will surely rebel, like all students do, and come to despise the Soviets and communism. If he goes to Paris, he will just as surely rebel, but against capitalism and the Western bloc.''
Posted by: McLovin at Thursday, February 28 2008 03:34 PM (eN5/Z)
McLovin: I minored in political science and as part of that took a class on the history of socialism. The professor was a brilliant orator and made great sport of smacking down the many and vocal Reaganites in the class.
Well, there's a big problem right there. How can you respect a teacher and his views when he clearly used his position as a bully pulpit to humiliate students who were right but had not learned how the skill of debating and were afraid to go so far with him?
Mac, your views are far enough left to show that your education is either incomplete or that your experiences were abnormal.
It's okay to be proud of the U.S., which has maintainied freedom throughout the globe and is the most generous nation for countries in need.
To answer your other question, I have been realtively conservative my whole life. My mom was active in the Republican party on the state level, when that wasn't popular, and I used to be one of the kids who would hang around the mall parking lot asking people if I could put Republican bumper stickers on their car. One of my grandfathers hated Roosevelt and was active in negotiating coal mining cortract with John L. Lewis, who learned to hate Roosevelt himself. I respected my grandfather and learned a lot from him. My other grandparents died before I was born and my Dad was more concerned with making a living than elections, so they weren't much of an influence on me over political issues. However, my dad was a WWII veteran, and I heard stories about the Japs and Germans and that Democrats always got us into wars and the Republicans would get us out. I also never cared what people thought of me, so I said what I believed without worrying about being accepted in a group of liberals. College had absolutely no effect on my politics. I majored in accounting and that's what we studied--not how to hate America. We in the School of Commerce used to laugh at the hippies. So, you might say that I turned out almost perfect.
Posted by: Woody at Thursday, February 28 2008 06:31 PM (Eb/8J)
No one is prouder of America than I am, but I suspect I'm proud of exactly the same things you despise, Woody.
American universities are the envy of the world, drawing some of the very best students from every corner of the earth. That is largely because of our tradition of academic freedom and that same tradition leads to professors being willing to criticize the U.S. government and present history as they see it, not as the government would like to have it seen.
I'm proud of the fact that America has a long history of military restraint. Episodes like Iraq are actually an aberration, as was the Vietnam war, and a temporary lapse in judgment that doesn't reflect longstanding American ideals or values. There were always be people who like war and demand more of it, but, fortunately, in America they have historically lost out politically.
I'm proud of the fact that most Americans embrace multiculturalism, meaning they are willing to work to understand other cultures on their own terms, without letting value judgments impede their understanding. They can do this because they are confident enough in their own value system not to be threatened by an open-minded approach to learning new things and incorporating good ideas, while rejecting bad ones.
I'm proud of the abolitionists and the civil rights crusaders who ultimately defeated the conservatives (like William F. Buckley) who opposed equal rights for Afro-Americans and other non-caucasions. I'm proud of the Americans who were big-minded enough to see past the racist rhetoric of the Strom Thurmonds and George Wallaces of the day.
I'm proud that most Americans oppose torture and understand why it is inimical to a free society and why the state should never have such awful power over any individual in any circumstance. I'm proud that Americans oppose the kind of prison without trial the Bush administration is now carrying out in Guantanamo. These Americans, a majority, understand that jurisprudence isn't a "nicety'' granted to those priviledged with American citizenship, but a human right "endowed by the creator.''
And as for the professor "bullying" the students. No professor should be under any pressure whatsoever not to challenge students as rigorously as possible. And this he did. The truth is these students were utterly ill prepared to discuss the issues they were bringing up. They accepted the mainstream media's praise of Reagan at face value and, therefore, were totally taken by surprise when presented with counter facts. It was quite funny to observe this in action.
Posted by: McLovin at Thursday, February 28 2008 06:51 PM (UvT8A)
McLovin, your last sentence speaks volumes. Liberals do enjoy hurting people who disagree with them. The viciousness of the last eight years is an example.
Also, don't assume that what you learned was all correct. A lot of people believed The NY Times, but now only 24% of Americans have a favorable view of paper according to a recent poll. Maybe your sources were biased and you didn't have a solid enough foundation to see it, and now you're trapped in that mindset.
Posted by: Woody at Thursday, February 28 2008 08:51 PM (Eb/8J)
Woody; where are you getting that people in the class I attended were "hurt."
There were being helped in one or both of two ways: One, they were enlightened to the fact that they weren't very well informed about the basis of their own political views. Two, they can't expect every professor to agree with their political biases.
As for the New York Times, if Americans view it so unfavorably, why in the world is the wingnutosphere so obsessed with it?
If Americans don't care what the liberal media says and don't trust it, why do conservatives keep blaming the liberal media for leading people astray?
Posted by: McLovin at Thursday, February 28 2008 10:47 PM (UvT8A)
No one likes to be humiliated in front of their peers, such as by the professors, and the political views of the students, especially if they were consistent with Reagan, may not have been wrong. I've seen and heard about bullying by professors. My own kids would listen and regurgitate what the professor wanted to hear rather than get into a fight with him that they couldn't win and that would hurt their grade. (Yes, professors can be vindictive.) If you can't see that, they you have no sensitivity or you're vindictive yourself. Any don't be so sure that your professor was so brilliant. You know the saying, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
The NY Times poll is a snapshot in time. It's ratings can go up and down. We're concerned about it and other left-wing media because a lot of people still read and put faith in the paper. Why are you obsessed with FOX?
On my assignment above on "why I'm a conservative," I left off that I grew up under very corrupt and incompetent Democatic elected officials, particularly on the city and state levels. Democrats are populists, and they will take any position that gets them elected without any convictions. Finally, the people caught on and threw the Democrats out, and the Republicans brought prosperity and respectability back to the area.
Posted by: Woody at Friday, February 29 2008 08:56 AM (Eb/8J)
You sound confused Woody.
You say the NY Times is unpopular and outside the mainstream, yet ``a lot of people still read and put faith in the paper.''
Can't really have it both ways, can you?
If the NY Times is out of touch, it can't have a significant effect on the mainstream of America. If it has no significant effect on the mainstream, why all the concern?
Your theory just doesn't stack up. Either the NY Times is more popular, more mainstream and more influential than you can admit, or it matters a lot less than you'll admit.
Posted by: McLovin at Friday, February 29 2008 05:52 PM (eN5/Z)
My view is that the New York Times is the "paper of record" because that's exactly what its readers demand. If it didn't serve the readers' demand for fast, accurate, comprehensive news, it wouldn't survive as the leading U.S. newspaper.
The U.S. newspaper market is among the most free and competitive in the world. The American people are among the most free thinking, best educated in the world. Given those two facts, no newspaper could survive if it didn't represent the basic thinking of its readers and, indeed, advertisers.
What about New York's conservative newspapers? What about the New York Post?
Why aren't the Woodys of the world happy to read and support and refer to the Post?
The answer is simple: The Post doesn't compete with the New York Times for real news. It focuses on scandal and sensation and local oddities. It isn't a paper of record because it just doesn't invest time and money to cover stories that aren't sensational enough to grab readers. Yet it has a huge readership and after many years of subsidy by conservative billionaire Rupert Murdoch, it appears to be profitable. The bottom line is that conservative readers don't really want news. They want entertainment and commentary that reaffirms their ideology.
Note that every successful conservative media enterprise is focused on commentary, not straight news. Fox News Channel beats CNN, but not in news coverage. It's talking heads like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity that bring in the conservative audience and the ratings.
Why do conservatives prefer commentary to news?
This, more than anything, explains why conservatives feel the media is so biased, whereas liberals don't see that at all.
The news itself--the facts showing things going so badly in Iraq, manmade climate change, a looming recession, evolution, the decline of American prestige globally and so on, all point away from conservative ideology.
So a conservative reader or viewer of straight news is somewhat justified in feeling under seige. Their views are under constant attack by the facts on the ground.
My aunt is a lifelong conservative and Republican. She told me: I listen to both sides. I listen to NPR and Rush Limbaugh. So in her mind, Limbaugh is somehow a counterpart to NPR. But of course the two are completely different. Limbaugh reports no news whatsoever. His program is exclusively unopposed commentary on news that's been reported already on NPR, the New York Times, etc.
NPR is 90 percent straight news. To be sure, all news, including NPR, includes bias. But there is a wide difference between biased straight news and commentary.
Of course NPR comes off as more liberal than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. How could it be otherwise? Does anyone think straight news should fall into line with the nakedly partisan views of ideologues like Limbaugh or Hannity?
That doesn't make NPR liberal, it makes NPR centrist.
The Wall Street Journal offers another illustrative example. It's arguably the most influential newspaper in America and, indeed, the world. It's nationwide readership is over 1 million, roughly in the same category as the New York Times, but with far more influence because its readers are virtually by definition far above average financially.
The WSJ editorial page is stridently conservative and unspairing in its criticism of liberals and Democrats. The new owner, Rupert Murdoch, has a long track record of steering his newspaper's coverage to favor conservatives. And there's nothing, per se, wrong with that. The WSJ editorial page caters to its readership. American conservatives have every right and reason to have a newspaper that represents their views and the WSJ is clearly that newspaper.
Trouble is, the WSJ's straight news coverage is indistinguishable from that of the NY Times, Washington Post, or liberal media, as described by conservatives. How does that happen? Is there a conspiracy with the WSJ to keep conservatives out of the news section and in the commentary? Of course not, the simple fact is that news can't credibly be reported from the narrow ideological perspective offered by rightwing columnists and commentators. Readers wouldn't buy it and, the record shows, readers reject it when it's offered to them.
So around and around it goes. Conservatives dominate newspaper and television commentary, thereby setting a narrow ideological frame for news, which then looks liberal, by comparison.
Posted by: McLovin at Friday, February 29 2008 05:53 PM (eN5/Z)
McLovin, there's no contradictions. People may be upset with Microsoft but that doesn't stop them from using it. The NY Times is the major paper of one of the world's major cities. That alone gives it readership. However, that doesn't mean that the people agree with the editorial decisions of the paper.
But I really have to laugh when you write: <i>"Conservatives dominate newspaper and television commentary...."</i>
Posted by: Woody at Friday, February 29 2008 07:36 PM (Eb/8J)
You still seem confused Woody.
You acknowledge that the NY Times is the major paper in the biggest city, but you don't acknowledge WHY it's the major paper.
Why isn't Murdoch's Post the major paper, or the New York Daily News?
The Microsoft comparison doesn't wash. If you want to use the vast majority of consumer application software, you have to use Microsoft. There's no choice.
If you want to read a paper other than the NY Times, there are several choices without effort or additional expense.
I do think I overstated that conservatives "dominate" newspaper and TV commentary. You'd need to add talkradio to get to "dominate." But it is safe to say that there are significantly more conservative commentators on TV and in newspapers and magazines than there are liberals.
A quick way to see this is to go to townhall.com and check their list of conservative pundits. Most of them have newspaper or magazine syndication deals and many of them either have spots or are regularly featured on TV chat shows.
If I were a conservative, I'd be asking why there's no successful conservative newspaper, instead of whining all the time that the most successful papers are liberal.
Posted by: McLovin at Friday, February 29 2008 09:52 PM (eN5/Z)
Posted by: Woody at Saturday, March 01 2008 10:05 AM (Eb/8J)
Also,
Two thirds of Americans - 67% - believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news, a new We Media/Zogby Interactive poll shows.The survey also found that while most Americans (70%) think journalism is important to the quality of life in their communities, two thirds (64%) are dissatisfied with the quality of journalism in their communities.
BTW, the original topic was "Education."
Posted by: Woody at Saturday, March 01 2008 01:35 PM (Eb/8J)
Woody, you're in denial about the New York Post and the New York Daily News and the Washington Times.
Those are all clearly right-of-center newspapers owned and operated by committed conservatives.
Why don't they have the national readership and prestige that the New York Times and Washington Post do?
Of course, the New York Times has much greater respect and influence than the New York Post, but that's respect and influence it has won in a free market of ideas. Same goes for the Washington Post over the Washington Times.
Basically, Woody. You're a sore loser in the free market of ideas.
No one's stopping conservatives from making their own media. Indeed, the conservatives have their own media. Trouble is, it's second-rate and you know it.
So instead of whining about how liberal the media is, you should be asking yourself why conservative rivals are all second rate.
My view is that bias, be it conservative or liberal, is unimportant relative to accuracy and transparency. If the media are factually accurate and don't rely on anonymous sourcing, intelligent readers can see right through any biases, so the particular tilt of a piece of writing is inconsequential.
Moreover, it's virtually impossible to set objective standards for what is "biased" anyway. You say NY Times is left-wing, but that begs the question of to the left of what? The average American? But where is it written that a newspaper should craft its political views to match the theoretical "average" American.
I get a sense that Woody believes that because the NY Times is to his left, it is, therefore, left-wing.
Of course we know the NY Times supported the invasion of Iraq and published outrageously biased reports falsely reporting that Iraq had WMD. These were anonymous reports virtually dictated by Dick Cheney's office to Judith Miller, who wrote them in the usual way, as part a quid pro quo to maintain the access to Cheney that her position in the world of journalism required.
It's a free country. If conservatives fail in the news media, they have only themselves to blame.
Posted by: McLovin at Saturday, March 01 2008 06:17 PM (eN5/Z)
Fine, Mac. I'm not going to change your mind. The NY Times is not liberal and the recent article on McCain was not a hatchet job.
Posted by: Woody at Saturday, March 01 2008 06:55 PM (Eb/8J)
My point, Woody, is that even if we could agree that the NY Times were liberal, that wouldn't give conservatives any right to complain.
And for the record, the McCain article was a hatchet job, just as were the many pre-war WMD articles. I've yet to see any liberal commentary that doesn't express disappointment with the NY Times as regards that McCain article. It's been widely condemned as a hatchet job in liberal circles.
I've yet to see any conservative commentator, not a single one, complain about Judith Miller's WMD propaganda spoon-fed straight from Dick Cheney's office into the NY Times. Not one complaint and that piece of propaganda led us straight into a disastrous war...
Posted by: McLovin at Saturday, March 01 2008 08:10 PM (eN5/Z)
Mac: "even if we could agree that the NY Times were liberal"
Then, it's not likely that we could agree on anything.
Posted by: Woody at Monday, March 03 2008 09:32 AM (Eb/8J)
Posted by: Caps at Thursday, November 11 2010 07:07 PM (a2TTR)
Posted by: fendi peekaboo bag at Thursday, December 16 2010 09:02 PM (U9YhK)
There were being helped in one or both of two ways: One, they were enlightened to the fact that they weren't very well informed about the basis of their own political views. Two, they can't expect every professor to agree with their political biases.
Posted by: lost dvd at Wednesday, January 26 2011 08:01 AM (yFgXN)
an upset win on Tuesday in a special election to represent women’s chef coats conservative upstate New York congressional district. Hochul defeated Republican Jane Corwin in a three-way race that also included self-described Tea Party candidate Jack Davis. The outcome did not affect Republican control of the chef coats House of Representatives."Tonight the voters were willing to look beyond the political labels and vote for a
person, and vote for aprons message that they believe in," Hochul told cheering supporters minutes after taking a phone call from Corwin, a state assemblywoman."We can balance the budget the right way, and not on the
backs of our seniors," said Hochul, the Erie County clerk. "We had the issues on our side."Once expected to be a Republican landslide, the special fleece blankets congressional election tightened in the final days, with a
spotlight trained on the national debate over the budget deficit, spending and Medicare -- the government-run healthcare program for the elderly.
Posted by: Chuck at Thursday, May 26 2011 05:28 PM (lM9eX)
I've been involved with providing alternative therapies to patients for mental and physical pain for much of my working life. Much scepticism surrounds non-conventional treatments and many doctors are scared to speak up about the facts. That said, it comes with an increasing number of medical doctors learning the art of traditional acupuncture and using it as being an extra tool to assist their sufferers.
Posted by: acupuncture for infertility fl at Monday, June 13 2011 02:09 AM (PKq7S)
Some of the equipment offered by Hoshizaki includes: industrial ice machine, flake ice machines, filtration, storage, ice dispensers, preparation tables, refrigerated displays, remote condensed units, stands, water dispensers, countertop and undercounter fridges.
Posted by: pellet mill progressing at Sunday, July 24 2011 09:20 PM (Q3mbi)
Al Gore warned that global warming would become more serious.
Europe's truffle shortage blamed on global warming
Farmers say production is down by 50-75% this winter season and they blame global warming, warning that if thermometers keep rising — as many scientists predict they could — France's black truffle will one day be just a memory.
Sad, huh? Just add it to the list of things that global warming causes that should make us destroy our economies and reallocate trillions of dollars from worthwhile investments.
As someone else noted, with such whipped-up massive public hysteria, maybe we can now understand how the Salem witch trials achieved consensus.
Below: Science project of enlightened kids who learn from GM's Corner
Global Warming...Yeah, Right!

Authored by Woody
Posted at 11:20 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Caps at Thursday, November 11 2010 07:07 PM (a2TTR)
Posted by: fendi peekaboo bag at Thursday, December 16 2010 09:02 PM (U9YhK)
February 25, 2008

"Dancing Fidel"
You can dance, you can jive, having the time of your life
See that whirl, watch that scene, dig in the Dancing Fidel
Friday night and the lights are low
Looking out for the place to go
Where they play the right music, getting in the swing
You come in to look for a king
Anybody could be that guy
Night is young and the music's high
With a bit of rock music, everything is fine
You're in the mood for a dance
And when you get the chance...
You are the Dancing Fidel, old and wrinkled, no longer seventeen
Dancing Fidel, feel the beat from the tambourine
You can dance, you can jive, having the time of your life
See that whirl, watch that scene, dig in the Dancing Fidel
You're a teaser, you turn 'em on
Leave them burning and then you're gone
Looking out for another, anyone will do
You're in the mood for a dance
And when you get the chance...
You are the Dancing Fidel, old and wrinkled, no longer seventeen
Dancing Fidel, feel the beat from the tambourine
You can dance, you can jive, having the time of your life
See that whirl, watch that scene, dig in the Dancing Fidel
With All Due Apologies to ABBA!
And a Tip O' The GM Derby to Dr. Sanity via Fausta's Carnival of Latin America and the Caribbean
Posted at 11:57 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Woody at Monday, February 25 2008 01:33 PM (Eb/8J)
Democratic and Republican party leaders put on their best game faces Monday, custom polo shirts embroidered custom making 11th hour arguments on the eve of midterm elections that seem certain to curb if not end Democratic control of Congress.
"We're hoping now for a fresh start with the American people," said GOP chairman custom shirts embroidered custom Michael Steele. "If we don't live up to those expectations, then we'll have a problem in two years."
His Democratic counterpart, Tim Kaine, said he believes Democrats will do better custom fleece jackets embroidered custom than some experts have contended, arguing that Republicans have been obstructionists who "can't see beyond the end of their no."
Kaine, Steele and other party leaders were asked once again on a slew of custom hoodies sweatshirt hooded custom network morning news shows to give fresh assessments of their prospects on the eve of balloting that will culminate a volatile — and possibly transcendent — campaign season.
Posted by: Stu at Monday, November 08 2010 03:08 AM (MtT9I)
Posted by: Caps at Thursday, November 11 2010 07:07 PM (a2TTR)
Posted by: fendi peekaboo bag at Thursday, December 16 2010 09:02 PM (U9YhK)
Posted by: 3dglasse at Monday, January 10 2011 07:44 PM (l+c2/)
Posted by: Office 2010 key at Sunday, February 13 2011 10:49 PM (ccv7l)
Posted by: jack at Monday, February 14 2011 12:42 AM (O9AOw)
Sarah Palin has deliberately left the question as to whether or not she will run in 2012 open. For those who believe a bid for the GOP nomination is still a possibility for her, The Arizona Republic provides women’s chef coats some further evidence: after months of rumors, Palin may have purchased a house in Scotsdale, Arizona. A deal on a secluded, 8,000-square-foot home in far north Scottsdale was recently closed by Safari Investments LLC for $1.695 million cash. The terms of the deal hide chef coats the identity of the owner, and when the attorney listed on the property records, Alan Kierman, was asked if Palin was the buyer, his response was an intriguing "no comment." According to the Republic, Palin has been rumored to be considering aprons headquartering her 2012 White House campaign in Scottsdale, if there is a campaign. A anonymous source from her camp also told Ben Smith at Politico that she would base a potential presidential campaign in Scottsdale, near where Bristol Palin recently bought fleece blankets a house in Maricopa. Palin has also been mentioned as a possible candidate for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Senator Jon Kyl.
Posted by: Chuck at Sunday, May 22 2011 10:38 AM (lM9eX)
Posted by: sam at Monday, July 11 2011 08:32 AM (eoSPO)
Posted by: angel1975 at Wednesday, October 12 2011 07:54 AM (bFvki)
Posted at 11:44 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.
Gov. Huckabee was on Saturday Night Live in a skit making fun of his not knowing when to get out. As part of the skit, which is pretty funny and its video shown below, he doesn't leave the scene when expected. Who wouldn't find that funny? Well, some liberals don't.
Here's what an Associate Press journalist wrote the next morning.
NEW YORK - Even though Mike Huckabee is still battling for the Republican presidential nomination despite long odds, he said Saturday he won't "overstay his welcome."
Then he did precisely that, lingering on the "Weekend Update" set of "Saturday Night Live" despite repeated cues to leave the stage.
Are they that stupid or clueless, or is it that the writer is trying to be funny but isn't? It's no wonder that liberals think conservatives are strange. They can't even tell when we're putting them on. It must be sad going through life having to be miserable and take everything so seriously. But, maybe I might feel that way if I depended upon government to support me, too.
Authored by Woody
Posted at 10:10 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.
Us libs have sense of humor, er at least a few of us. IMHO Huckabee is far and away the best-humored of the candidates..he even goes on the comedy (libtard) channel and more than holds his own. Don't recall Thompson doing that. Would that more candidates had that folksy charm. Pretty funny about us libs depending on government support too! I was only on it for a few years as a US Army officer and suppose I should be remorseful
Posted by: BB-Idaho at Monday, February 25 2008 08:48 PM (Ewk4Y)
Posted by: TexasFred at Monday, February 25 2008 11:17 PM (9OWgm)
Posted by: Woody at Tuesday, February 26 2008 07:42 AM (Eb/8J)
Posted by: e. nonee moose at Tuesday, February 26 2008 01:27 PM (NqGLn)
Posted by: Woody at Tuesday, February 26 2008 02:47 PM (Eb/8J)
<i>let us know if you need help writing anything since our views are so close.</i>
Well, perhaps you're really a comedian after all! There's only one post because, quite frankly, it's the first time I've blogged in years so I'm pretty much starting over from scratch. I left a link here because I knew you couldn't resist the temptation to drop in and see what's going on. Will post more in the future. You might be disappointed though as it's going to be much less political than you'd like, I'm afraid.
Posted by: e. nonee moose at Tuesday, February 26 2008 04:12 PM (NqGLn)
Posted by: Woody at Wednesday, February 27 2008 09:34 AM (Eb/8J)
Posted by: embroidery digitizing at Thursday, November 11 2010 07:09 PM (a2TTR)
Posted by: pellet mill progressing at Tuesday, June 28 2011 01:04 AM (TIN90)
Posted by: pellet mill progressing at Thursday, July 28 2011 09:13 PM (g9aQu)
February 24, 2008
Maybe I shouldn't equate Liberalism with Democrats, there are after all a few stalwart Democrats that are conservative and who cringe when they hear Obama and Hillary Speak. However, they can't speak out or go against the party line because they too want to be re-elected.
Back to the subject at hand: Are liberals and democrats painting themselves into a corner with Obama? Victor Davis Hanson in a terrific article wonders "What Brought Us Here?" meaning the rise of Obama. In part Hanson notes:
"But sometime by December, the Obama candidacy had transmogrified, as his wife and Oprah, in style and substance, vouched for his African-American fides—and suddenly 90% of the black vote was unexpectedly won in many primaries. If his worry in the cauldron of Chicago politics was that he was too “white”, suddenly those fears were assuaged in the current election.Second, at about the same time the hope and change message began to morph as well into a prophetic, near messianic sermon along the self-righteous lines of something like, “You, America, have a final chance to show that you are still good, after all, by voting for a brilliant African-American charismatic leader. If you don’t, then you are captive to race, and we were right all along about your America.”
The Racial Paradox
Racial solidarity or perhaps racial atonement is the subtext of Michelle Obama’s controversial speech, and the lame meae culpae that followed. So now we are in this Orwellian paradox of seeing Obama’s base turn out in record numbers on the basis apparently of race, but on the other hand the implied warning that if anyone else were likewise to consider that fact, then he would be racialist."
I don't suppose that I can oppose an Obama candidacy because he is the most Liberal Senator in the United States Senate? I don't suppose that I can oppose an Obama candidacy because he has already promised something along the lines of 815 trillion dollars in additional spending? I don't suppose that I can oppose an Obama candidacy because he claims that middle class people are "victims" and not responsible for the choices that they make? I don't suppose that I can oppose an Obama candidacy because he wants to nationalize health care (but at the same time castigates the Veterans Administration - the epitome of government health care) which everyone thinks will be free, but for which they will ALL pay on April 15th every year? I don't suppose that I can oppose an Obama candidacy because he wants to pull out of a war BEFORE we have won it and will thus encourage additional depredations by the islamofascists?
If I do any of the above, why, I must be a racist! In fact, if any of you vote AGAINST Obama or FOR anyone else you too are a racist.
Bull shit!
I may not vote for McCain, but you can damn sure bet that I'd vote against Obama if he ends up the Democrat nominee and if that makes me a racist, well then; So. Be. It.
Posted at 07:40 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.
Interesting site you have. I won't vote for Osama because his imitation of Elmer Gantry is really awful. I've seen Nigerian email offers that have more credibility. As for his wife, well when they made them they matched them.
On the flip side I won't be voting for that RINO McCain. I get tired of all the war hero BS. Exactly what was it he did that was heroic compared to the 2,000 other POWs?
And if I hear once again what a brillant guy Osama is I'll throw up. My dog shows more indilligence and makes his intentions known more clearly and quickly than Osama without a telepromter.
Posted by: Thomas Jackkson at Sunday, February 24 2008 07:49 PM (XXrhY)
Posted by: GM Roper at Sunday, February 24 2008 08:34 PM (S60yG)
Hmmm.
The Democrats are "painting themselves into a corner'' because, wait for it, their nominee is TOO LIBERAL.
And, wait for it again, GM Roper, a rightwing blogger with GOP ads all over his site, WON"T BE VOTING FOR OBAMA. And that's supposed to somehow be persuasive?
I attended a wedding over the weekend and ended up seated at dinner with three other men, two of which were "lifelong Republicans." One, a retired Marine, said he would be voting for Obama because he thought the country needed a fresh approach and believed Obama could provide a break with the past divisions between liberals and conservatives.
I certainly think the former Marine's comments don't reflect a very careful study of events, but there you have it. And I have a feeling he's far from alone among "lifelong Republicans."
The other lifelong GOP guy said he would also vote for Obama, should he win the nomination. His reason was that he didn't want the Supreme Court to be packed exclusively with conservatives. Even though he's a Republican, he recognized the importance of spreading power out among political factions.
Again, I don't share that view of the judiciary's role, but I did take his comments as a further sign that a lot of Republicans are digging pretty deep for reasons to explain why they'll vote for Obama.
Reminds me of nothing so much as the many Democrats who felt they had to make up reasons to vote for Reagan. Most back then, as I recall, usually muttered something about Reagan cheerleading the country into better times somehow...
Posted by: McLovin at Monday, February 25 2008 12:39 AM (UvT8A)
What a spectacular disappointment. Republicans fear they won't be able to get away with race-baiting the Democratic candidate.
It's funny and telling that they're worried this will throw them off their game.
Posted by: Hal E. Burton at Monday, February 25 2008 03:12 AM (UvT8A)
With the race now including Nader, who doesn't think that Obama is even liberal enough for him, many left-wingers will decide to vote for the Green candidate. Would that make them racist?
It's interesting that we'll have candidates who are white, green, and black--or, for the last one, should I say socialist red?
Posted by: Woody at Monday, February 25 2008 08:07 AM (Eb/8J)
Posted by: GM Roper at Monday, February 25 2008 08:14 AM (1fjXG)
"Maybe I shouldn't equate Liberalism with Democrats, there are after all a few stalwart Democrats that are conservative and who cringe when they hear Obama and Hillary Speak. However, they can't speak out or go against the party line because they too want to be re-elected. "---GMR
Well not really related to the main point of your post, but since you mentioned it.
The fundamental problem with institutional 'democracy' is summed up precisely by your above observation. You even cite it a legitimate' defense' for behavior that otherwise would be censurable. If someone 'cringes' when they see Obama or Hillary, then they shouldn't be part of the process or the Party that supports them. I think English has a word for those who sell themselves for money an position. Some are just more honest about their roles.
There are far too few representatives who really want to to do something whatever the future costs, and far too many who 'want to be re-elected'. ALL they want is to be re-elected. If they can't even speak out in defense of what they supposedly believe, for fear of their political future, what difference between them and any other time serving bureaucrat or corporate functionary ?
But they are not supposed to be like these other drones. They are supposed to be 'leaders'.
For all the talk about corruption and special interests distorting the process, the process is ruined by precisely the types of people who gravitate towards it and are rewarded by the 'voters' as a result.
Obama promises he will clean up Washington. He's therefore automatically either a liar or a fool or most likely both. Reason enough to never vote for him. 'Liberal', or not.
Yes We Can !!
Reason enough to recoil from this guy. He frankly creeps me out the more I see of him.
ps --- For those commentators who think that Obama is a 'breath of fresh air'.
He's NOT.
And he won't get elected in November. Sorry to burst your bubbles so early in the cycle. Those polls that now favor him --- The important thing to note in them is that he can't break the 48% support barrier in a direct projected matchup. 48%. That's just about what EVERY Democrat can show in these early days in EVERY election. And this is his high-water point. The point before all his 'liberal' postions are piled atop one another to present a clear picture to the electorate. The point before more and more people wonder whether putting a boy into a man's job at a time of WAR is really such a great idea. The point before his 'religion' and his 'religious' backers are marched out for all to see. Anyone who gets Farahkan's fevered endorsement really does have some splainin' to do. The point before he IS seen as the candidate of one particular group.
He's already lost. And it's not even March.
Posted by: dougf at Monday, February 25 2008 10:45 AM (16GPT)
Posted by: GM Roper at Monday, February 25 2008 12:12 PM (S60yG)
Thanks dougf, for that breath of "air."
The talking point is supposed to be Obama's "too popular" thus a sign that surely the American people are stupid.
But I see you're thinking outside the box with: Obama's already lost the election, i.e. Obama's ``too unpopular.''
Keep it coming! It's so fun watching Republicans lose.
They keep trying to retrofit the same talking points they used in 2000 and 2004, but they just aren't working this time around and won't.
Posted by: McLovin at Monday, February 25 2008 03:40 PM (eN5/Z)
Posted by: embroidery digitizing at Thursday, November 11 2010 07:09 PM (a2TTR)
There are many kinds of ice makers. It's available in many forms like the refrigerator ice makers. There's also some for commercial use, portable, indoor or outdoor, underneath the counter and ice machine equipment.
Posted by: pellet mill progressing at Thursday, July 28 2011 09:12 PM (g9aQu)
My fellow cancer sufferor Tony Snow has some great words for anyone suffering from cancer, for anyone who loves someone suffering from cancer.
Thanks and a Tip O' The GM Derby to Macsmind via the marvelous and incomparable Larwyn!
Posted at 03:50 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Angel at Sunday, February 24 2008 06:13 PM (EtrGt)
Posted by: embroidery digitizing at Thursday, November 11 2010 07:09 PM (a2TTR)
Posted by: 3dglasse at Thursday, January 13 2011 07:43 PM (l+c2/)
Posted by: 3dglasse at Thursday, January 13 2011 07:44 PM (l+c2/)
an upset win on Tuesday in a special election to represent women’s chef coats conservative upstate New York congressional district. Hochul defeated Republican Jane Corwin in a three-way race that also included self-described Tea Party candidate Jack Davis. The outcome did not affect Republican control of the chef coats House of Representatives."Tonight the voters were willing to look beyond the political labels and vote for a
person, and vote for aprons message that they believe in," Hochul told cheering supporters minutes after taking a phone call from Corwin, a state assemblywoman."We can balance the budget the right way, and not on the
backs of our seniors," said Hochul, the Erie County clerk. "We had the issues on our side."Once expected to be a Republican landslide, the special fleece blankets congressional election tightened in the final days, with a
spotlight trained on the national debate over the budget deficit, spending and Medicare -- the government-run healthcare program for the elderly.
Posted by: Chuck at Thursday, May 26 2011 05:56 PM (lM9eX)
The healthcare groups think it is handy particularly in sporting activities in which a cold compress first aid treatment may be needed. The supermarkets and convenience store sells loads or blocks of ice produced from ice makers. The lodging houses and food services like restaurants and cafes never run out of ice makers because most of the customers search for ice for their drinks. Some restaurants serve the coolest desserts that need plenty of ice.
There are many kinds of ice makers. It's available in many forms like the refrigerator ice makers. There are also some for commercial use, portable, outdoor or indoor, under the counter and ice machine plant.
Posted by: pellet mill progressing at Thursday, July 28 2011 09:10 PM (g9aQu)
One of the hot selling watches is iron samurai watch. While not open it, it is just lke a common metal wrist watch. But the watch skillfully adopts the chain structure and hides the LED lights in the gap, and then display the time through this way. Its special design succeeded to win a huge number of fans. The watch is not only a time display; it is mark of fashion, beauty and personality.
Posted by: pellet mill progressing at Sunday, July 31 2011 08:54 PM (oxPo5)
February 21, 2008
The Union of Concerned Scientists stated in a May 2004 article (Published in Common Dreams dot Org - a news site for "progressives") that the anti-missile system couldn't possibly work. Among other things, they noted:
"If the president is told that the system could reliably defend against a North Korean ballistic missile attack, he might be willing to accept more risks when making policy and military decisions," the report said.
"All indications are that it would not work," added Lisbeth Gronlund, a physicist who is a co-author of the report and co-director of the group's global security program.
"And the administration's statements that it will be highly effective are irresponsible nonsense," she added in a telephone interview.
So, faced with the real threat of a collapsing orbit for a spy satellite with a fuel load of dangerous chemicals, the Navy ventured to shoot it down with a system that "won't work." Click more for the evidence that it didn't work.
more...
Posted at 12:22 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.
The dissapoinments for liberals just keep adding up. Why do they hate the U.S. defending itself? Do they think it's "not fair" unless we give our techonology to everyone? Remember Liberals Laughing at "Star Wars?"
Posted by: Woody at Thursday, February 21 2008 01:57 PM (q/De+)
You may want to rethink that one GM.
Shooting down a disabled satellite is far too easy compared with downing an incoming enemy missile, especially when the enemy takes countermeasures.
It's like shooting fish in a barrel versus hitting one high-powered rifle bullet with another.
Star Wars may well work as an offensive technology and, in that, may be worth studying as long as we don't pour too much money into it. But scientists have long since debunked the idea that it could ever be an effective DEFENSIVE technology. The countermeasures, e.g. decoys, are just too easy.
Posted by: McLovin at Thursday, February 21 2008 04:02 PM (eN5/Z)
Posted by: Woody at Friday, February 22 2008 07:50 AM (Eb/8J)
I guess I'm not a liberal then.
I support research into space weapons, but I don't think it should be a priority and, at the moment, it should be suspended because we just can't afford that kind of exotic research.
My objection to "Star Wars'' has been the silly Reagan/Bush rhetoric claiming it would be a defensive weapon.
The offensive capabilities of any such weapon would be spectacular while as a defensive weapon it would be useful only against the extremely low-tech missiles.
Defense spending research and develop requires balance. Too much is simply wasteful and counterproductive. If that makes a liberal, than I surely am.
Posted by: McLovin at Friday, February 22 2008 08:13 AM (eN5/Z)
Woodster, that's just funny on so many levels. How many previous tests have failed miserably, exactly?
Posted by: jim hitchcock at Friday, February 22 2008 11:06 AM (c+cFw)
McL... "You may want to rethink that one GM."
Actually not, if you take a look at the graphics noted at Fausta's Blog, you will see the difficulty of hitting an object at a closing speed of over 22,000 mph. Especially when you have to insure that the two objects are at exactly the same place at the same time. I'd think your knowledge of physics is somewhat lacking so you may want to rethink your position.
Posted by: GM Roper at Friday, February 22 2008 12:35 PM (S60yG)
It appears to have been a "one shot, one kill" scenario and a direct hit in the fuel tank. The Navy did a fine job of targeting the satillite.
Did you happen to hear all the scuttlebut about Russia, China and another of those pain in the butt countries mad about us shooting it down because they said we were doing it to destroy "spy secrets" and risking the debris hitting people to do it??? I have one thing to say about that. "And your point would be...????" I'm sure the fuel wasn't the only consideration. I don't know of any "fuel type" that wouldn't "burn up" reentering the atmosphere. So, your thoughts GM???
Oh, and I want to send you my very best get well wishes!!!!
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at Friday, February 22 2008 02:50 PM (f9Dpx)
wouldn't burn up in re-entry, and hydrozine is some extremely nasty stuff.
Posted by: jim hitchcock at Friday, February 22 2008 02:56 PM (c+cFw)
Posted by: Woody at Friday, February 22 2008 05:17 PM (Eb/8J)
Mac: My objection to "Star Wars'' has been the silly Reagan/Bush rhetoric claiming it would be a defensive weapon.
Decide for yourself, after reading Reagan's speech, whether it was he or McLovin who is silly.
Reagan's Address to the Nation on Defense and National Security March 23, 1983
What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it's reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But isn't it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is.
- - -
Mac: The offensive capabilities of any such weapon would be spectacular while as a defensive weapon it would be useful only against the extremely low-tech missiles.
Like those of China, Iran, and North Korea?
Posted by: Woody at Friday, February 22 2008 05:33 PM (Eb/8J)
Not to mention it sent an important, and much overdue signal to the Chinese. Of course, now they will redouble their efforts, and we will need to redouble ours . . . and rocket scientists will have a job for years into the future. Well, that is unless Obama dismantles the DoD, NASA, and the State Department.
Semper Fi
Posted by: Mustang at Friday, February 22 2008 06:22 PM (yfwDD)
Of course that kind of weapons technology would have some practical applications, such as fending off the very minor, outlying threat of an intercontinental scud attack from Pyongyang.
But one difference between adults and children is that adults understand you have to make difficult choices in a world of scarcity.
For adults, the question isn't simply whether it would be good to have space weapons, but whether it's worth the sacrifices we'd have to make to get them.
At a moment when we're borrowing up to our eyebrows just to maintain a couple of wars against tiny bands of ragtag militia and fake religious gangsters, I think we just can't afford the luxury of spending much money on these kinds of weapons.
Let's figure out how to pay for the defense we need now before we go launching on major projects that have such distant possiblity for effective application.
Posted by: McLovin at Friday, February 22 2008 07:15 PM (eN5/Z)
McLovin, you're with the same crowd during the moon race who said that the U.S. shouldn't waste money on space but should spend it on people. The techonologies developed in our space research have paid far greater dividends to mankind than throwing money at unappreciative people who use it once or waste it.
I'm sure that the people whose lives were saved in Israel from the Scud missiles appreciate the research that we had developed to that point.
Posted by: Woody at Friday, February 22 2008 07:34 PM (Eb/8J)
Success requires making difficult decisions from among imperfect choices.
In a perfect world, there would be no problem about spending billions on star wars. Though in a perfect world, there'd be no need for such things.
Adults understand that you can't always get what you want. For adults, the question isn't whether there is any benefit to star wars, but whether the benefit outweighs the costs.
Children, on the other hand, only point to the benefits of getting what they want. They ignore the costs and just keep repeating the benefits to themselves and others.
Posted by: McLovin at Saturday, February 23 2008 01:45 AM (eN5/Z)
Mac: Children, on the other hand, only point to the benefits of getting what they want. They ignore the costs and just keep repeating the benefits to themselves and others.
Mac, why didn't you tell us that you are a Republican?
One difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans want what is best for the country and Democrats want what is best for themselves as individuals.
Posted by: Woody at Saturday, February 23 2008 08:19 AM (Eb/8J)
Conservatives are in a perpetual battle to find and maintain a moral and fiscal blank check.
Note how many times they repeat: "We're in a war now" as if that justifies subverting the Constitution to spy on Americans, subverting treaty obligations to use torture and spending like drunken sailors, without any hint as to how we'll pay for it.
Without a horrific enemy, the right wing demands to curtail civil rights, expand government power and spend on the military without limits have no logic.
This is why so many right wing American's actually join bin Laden in trying to make his ragtag band of fake religious gangsters out to be some kind of massive global threat that's poised to take over the free world. This is why so many right wing Americans cannot even admit that moderate Muslims exist, let alone acknowledge their role on the front lines battling Muslim extremism.
Always be suspicious of people who demand blank checks.
Posted by: McLovin at Sunday, February 24 2008 04:30 AM (eN5/Z)
Mac, you've diverted from dicussing the subject or answering our responses. Now, you are simply cutting and pasting typical liberal and wrong characterizations of conservatives--very wrong. What we say is what we feel as individuals. What you say is what you're told by the group with which you identity.
Wouldn't it be better to stay on topic than to post bland attacks that you're regugitating?
Posted by: Woody at Sunday, February 24 2008 10:10 AM (Eb/8J)
Woody, you constantly depart from the subjects of posts. You do it here and on other blogs as well. You have no right whatsoever to criticize me for it.
You only try to bring that up because you have no other rational response to the points I've raised.
The concept of a blank check is completely relevant to Star Wars, anyway.
My criticism of Star Wars has been that it costs too much for the potential benefits. Part of my critique of that includes pointing out how right wing Americans are never willing to acknowledge that weapons spending could possibly be too much. They much prefer to argue that the enemy we face is really, really, really scary, so we have NO CHOICE but to spend ourselves into oblivion.
If you have a relevant point, Woody, make it. If not, you may want to consider leaving the conversation to those who do.
Posted by: McLovin at Sunday, February 24 2008 06:52 PM (UvT8A)
Mac, I suspect that I know who you, although you use a different name here. At least I'm consistent in identifying myself.
Your response in No. 16 was nothing but a general criticism of conservatives that you likely save as a word document and use whenever you're out of ammunition. When I bring it up, then you say that I'm guilty of it.
Ann Coulter was right about talking with liberals.
"If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you've said -- unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder." -- P. 3
Blank checks are what liberals think exist for all welfare programs, which never expire and are never capped. At least a missile defense system shows results and has an end objective that can be measured and then is over.
Posted by: Woody at Sunday, February 24 2008 09:26 PM (Eb/8J)
The Supreme Court has turned down the first preliminary challenge to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The decision Monday to reject an appeal from a former custom aprons personalized. Republican state lawmaker in California was no surprise because a federal appeals court has yet to consider the case. The high court almost never reviews cases before the issues custom bib apron personalized have been aired in lower courts. Of more significance is the sign that all the justices took custom chef apron personalized part in rejecting the appeal. New Justice Elena Kagan fitted custom hats personalized refused to say during her confirmation hearings whether she would take part in the court's deliberations over the health care law. Kagan was Obama's solicitor general before joining the court.
Posted by: Stu at Monday, November 08 2010 02:32 PM (MtT9I)
Posted by: embroidery digitizing at Thursday, November 11 2010 07:10 PM (a2TTR)
VOB to MPEG4 Mac is the first choice for users to convert VOB to MPEG4 on mac with super fast speed and excellent quality.
If you want to convert MOV to MPEG4 on mac, I highly recommend this MOV to MPEG4 Mac to you which can get output MPEG4 files with 1:1 quality of original files or a totally new one with much better effect.
FLV to MPEG4 Mac is an all-in-one video converter for Mac OS X, it can smartly convert between various kinds of video and audio formats. All the formsts like HD video, general video, audio, flash video are supported.
Posted by: MPEG4 Converter Mac at Sunday, December 19 2010 06:30 AM (T72xc)
Posted by: 3dglasse at Monday, January 10 2011 07:42 PM (l+c2/)
Posted by: wuhui at Saturday, March 26 2011 07:41 AM (Wv7rK)
Sarah Palin has deliberately left the question as to whether or not she will run in 2012 open. For those who believe a bid for the GOP nomination is still a possibility for her, The Arizona Republic provides women’s chef coats some further evidence: after months of rumors, Palin may have purchased a house in Scotsdale, Arizona. A deal on a secluded, 8,000-square-foot home in far north Scottsdale was recently closed by Safari Investments LLC for $1.695 million cash. The terms of the deal hide chef coats the identity of the owner, and when the attorney listed on the property records, Alan Kierman, was asked if Palin was the buyer, his response was an intriguing "no comment." According to the Republic, Palin has been rumored to be considering aprons headquartering her 2012 White House campaign in Scottsdale, if there is a campaign. A anonymous source from her camp also told Ben Smith at Politico that she would base a potential presidential campaign in Scottsdale, near where Bristol Palin recently bought fleece blankets a house in Maricopa. Palin has also been mentioned as a possible candidate for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Senator Jon Kyl.
Posted by: Chuck at Sunday, May 22 2011 10:23 AM (lM9eX)
Posted by: pellet mill progressing at Thursday, July 28 2011 09:07 PM (g9aQu)
February 20, 2008
Who would have thought, way back in February of '07 that the Presidential Nomination Campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton would be in such dire straits. Now there is a term for you; dire straits. Dire is from the Latin dïrus, meaning fearsome, terrible; and of course straits are narrow waters between two larger bodies, often fraught with danger.
And that is exactly where Hillary's disastrous campaign has brought her. As of today, Obama has won 10 straight victories and Hillary must be pulling her hair out. Her managers are sending out the word for anyone with an idea to call in. Terry McCaullif himself is taking calls. She fired her Hispanic campaign manager and brought on an African American. And this was only a couple of weeks prior to the Texas Primary where fully 1/3 of all voters are Hispanic.
Historically, Democrats have been big supporters of the Clintons. Here in the Rio Grande Valley they have made multiple trips over the last 16 years collecting political cash, and this from one of the poorest parts of the country. Yet, come they have and have raked in millions. Almost makes you wonder where all that money came from doesn't it?
Compounding the problem for Hillary is Bill's insistence on making this a race issue. He did it in South Carolina and elsewhere as well. But Texas is home to an awful lot of blacks, and they will likely go for Obama in the record numbers that Obama has been posting. Too, Obama has been making huge inroads into the Hispanic youth who may turn out in large numbers for him if they turn out at all.
Texas has Early "No Excuse" Voting which began yesterday and already the large counties of Harris, Bexar and Dallas and Travis are reporting larger than normal turnout. Could this be a Texas Tsunami.
And the race card in Texas cannot and should not be discounted. The Latino groups are angry at the short shrift given to their needs by the NAACP. They have already supplanted African-Americans as the largest minority and though many are family oriented and conservative, the Democratic Party has been their home for a long, long time, that is until the candidacy of George W. Bush. In 2000 and 2004 Bush carried a much larger percentage of Latino votes than was expected.
In this primary, there are 228 Democratic Delegates at stake and by careful planning and campaigning (Obama is already preparing Spanish language adds on health care - Hillary's signature issue) Obama could take the giant's share, maybe as many as 60-70%, and that would put paid to the Clinton Campaign for sure.
In 2004, almost 60% of Latinos of voting age were registered as opposed to almost 71% of blacks and 70% of Whites. When you compare the numbers of voters this represents, 5.23 million Latino voters, 1.6 million blacks and 13.2 million whites, this can be a substantial number of votes for Hillary, assuming she carries the majority of white and Latino voters. But Obama is doing everything he can to break the ties to the Clinton machine. And he has a good shot at it.
Travis County is the home of Austin and the University of Texas; and Austin is inarguably the most liberal city in Texas. In fact, it's nickname is Moscow on the Colorado. This could play well for Obama if he can turn out the vote. Too, there are numerous counties in East Texas with large black populations that could well be in the Obama corner too.
Hillary has her work cut out for her. First, she has to overcome the "looser" image that Obama's 10 victories have tossed in her direction. Second, she has to hold on to the Latino vote and increase her percentage among whites and blacks. And lastly, and most important perhaps, she has to start appearing honest, hopeful, and in charge of what is now seen as a floundering campaign. Can she do it? We'll see on March 4th.
Posted at 09:32 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 676 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: e. nonee moose at Thursday, February 21 2008 08:44 AM (Pi+Yn)
Posted by: Woody at Thursday, February 21 2008 09:31 AM (Eb/8J)
Posted by: GM Roper at Thursday, February 21 2008 09:56 AM (S60yG)
Posted by: Woody at Thursday, February 21 2008 01:31 PM (q/De+)
Posted by: jim hitchcock at Thursday, February 21 2008 06:08 PM (c+cFw)
Posted by: Stan the man at Thursday, February 21 2008 10:06 PM (EH75O)
Posted by: embroidery digitizing at Thursday, November 11 2010 07:10 PM (a2TTR)
FLV to WMV Mac is the best solution for mac users to convert Youtube and Hulu (FLV/F4V) videos to WMV video format. If you want to convert downloaded youtube videos to WMV on mac, this FLV to WMV Converter mac is your best choice.
Posted by: FLV Converter for Mac at Thursday, December 23 2010 08:44 AM (KCfoc)
Posted by: pellet mill progressing at Thursday, July 28 2011 09:06 PM (g9aQu)
Sent to me by my good friend Mustang. So blame him!
Posted at 08:28 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
Reminds me of: I've got tears in my ears from lying in bed crying over you.
Darlin' you just sorta stomped on my aorta
I wouldn't take her to a dogfight, even if she had a chance of winning (Micheal Vick's favorite)
And the Johnny Cash great - Flushed from the Bathroom of Your Heart
Posted by: DADvocate at Wednesday, February 20 2008 09:21 PM (xFyLK)
Posted by: embroidery digitizing at Thursday, November 11 2010 07:10 PM (a2TTR)
If so, Where could i download this template? if not, how much does it cost? Thanks a lot!
<a href="http://www.sacamain-france.com/sac-chanel-sacs-agrave-main-chanel-2010-c-751_759.html">Sacs à main Chanel 2010</a>
Posted by: Sacs à main Chanel 2010 at Friday, June 10 2011 07:59 PM (Wlx4R)
The Newest Natural Human Wig under $100 for Black Women:
Thankfully, today's african Hairstyles Wigs under 200 dollars are available in a variety of styles, lengths and colours, including a more superb level of quality. The wigs I'm talking about look natural towards the human eye alone when worn on your head! If you have not guessed it by now, I'm referring to full lace wigs that can be customized especially for your needs for men and women.
Posted by: acupuncture for infertility fl at Sunday, June 19 2011 09:53 PM (7RS4l)
Posted by: pellet mill progressing at Thursday, July 28 2011 09:06 PM (g9aQu)
Posted by: Replica Hermes at Friday, November 18 2011 08:44 PM (V5xCc)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.






