And Furthermore...

Maligned POW'S
Forgot to malign the Klan.
Speaks in circles.
Ridicules handicapped
HAS no government experience
Is NOT a conservative

Oh he DID reassure is that he has a big di*k.
Yeah. That's enough.
President Big Di*k.

Sounds about right.

http://poynterinstitute.tumblr.com/post/62835449659/editor-newspapers-cant-reach-households-headed-by

Okay, as an attempt to organize myself better I thought I would create a document with all my passwords in one place. I never noticed that I had so many things under Google with one account. I've put things in motion that were unrelated in my head, but as I go across the new [ish] black top border on the Google start portal, I see that I have activity in all kinds of areas I had never really used together before.

This is really just what I wanted. Phone, calendar, G+, Mail, YouTube. This is good. I'll have to play around with this.

Maybe I'll try to re-establish the blog too. Who knows. It might be worth it.

CONSERVATIVES VS. MODERATES-response to a post

Response to :My Advice 2 Tha GOP.

Great views on many subjects, but I must object in a few areas.

Abortion has been compared to slavery as a noble cause on which to found a movement. For the GOP to abandon the unborn would be as pragmatic as having told Lincoln that if he would just step aside so that the nomination could be carried by a free market individualist who believed in "slave choice" for states the "the party may well be over."

You are correct that when times get tough, the conservatives get the boot. The reason for this is that tough times beg for a quick fix solution, and big government is the easy answer. That is why Mr. Compassion (W.) threw up what he thought was a $700B quick fix. Now a month later we see that half of the cash is being held by banks forced to take it, and the other half hasn't even been designated for a destination.

The solution to the loss of the conservative is not to give up the wing nuts. It is to more effectively spread the message. If more people understood that the bailout plan was not enough to help and could only be used to grow government then the plan would never have been passed. If that plan was passed during a presidential election and the message was already effectively spread, then the conservative candidate (which we did not have this time around) would have been able to explain the difference between big government Bush, and bigger government Obama. The public would have seen the truth, and we would have averted the train wreck we are barreling toward today.

We are in a fight right now between strict conservatives, and moderates, and I think the answer has to simply be that as strict conservatives, we must lead by selling the vision. Today that vision includes a rejection of the concept of an entity being "too big to fail." There is no such thing as that. The actual dinosaurs are all dead, and that made way for us mammals. Sometimes the structures in place are not the structures that should be in place. Chrysler was bailed out nearly 30 years ago, and thought they have paid back their loans, they are in the same position again. We did not help today's employees by providing a temporary job when they could have been in position to learn new skills 25 years ago.

As to the local issues in GA, I can tell you that there ain't no GOP'sters in Cook County with an ounce of clout, and we get whupt here too. Surely you know about the 20+ death row inmates exonerated for the crimes of which they were accused? That was all done by Democrats. The arresting cops, to the judges, to the D.A. to the appellate judges, to the Mayor and their own defense attorneys, and that truth doesn't turn us away from the damn Dems, does it? No.

The point in that area is that there will always be rouges associated with any political party, but we have to be sure to refer to the actual ideas of the party to attract others of us.

Whitewash discussion

"Anyone who has traveled to the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results. . . .
...
The Japanese people and the American people are both opposed to intermarriage of the two races--there can be no quarrel there."

--Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1925
President, 1933-45

At a time when we are being sold a line about the second coming of FDR we need to commit to more scrutiny of the original FDR. Was he the savior of a nation or was he the man who ushered in the weakening of individual responsibility by creating the illusion of what is often known as a government "safety net?"

Did he lead us from the great depression, or did he extend that depression by stifling the growth of private industry? It seems that there is no question he lead us through WWII with wisdom, courage, and valiance and should never be tarnished for those efforts, but his domestic policy must now be revisited; not for reasons of partisanship, but to insure that the options ahead of us today will foster growth of the private sector and prevention of more bloating on part of the federal blob.

Oh, and he was a racist too, huh?

I like it around here already...

Same-O, Lame-O-bama, lama, Ding Dong.

Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff (Clinton Retread)
Eric Holder, Attorney General (Clinton Retread)
Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State (literal Clinton)
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense (CURRENT BUSH OFFICIAL!!!)

At first I thought Obama was making safe, unassailable choices. Good centerist idea. Now I'm thinking that he can't really be about change with these people around. They are the same as yesteryear.

This is an example of why I didn't trust his brand of "change" in the first place. We don't really know about policy yet, but the people he is putting in place seem to be protectors of the status quo.

The selection of Gates is not yet confirmed, but would mean that GWB the idiot apparently did something right. I already knew that.

Bush didn't lie. Dem's ignored their eyes.

For years the opposition has cried for hearings and investigations into the lies leading up to the overthrow of Iraq in 2003. Finally they get their way and it seems that there is nothing to show. In this article by by Fred Hiatt in the Washington Post, we see that the real lies are the ones told by members of Congress with access to classified files. They were lies of omission. They seem to have forgotten that they saw everytihing the Bush Administration saw. And agreed with the analysis.

The pithy catchphrase of 2004, "Bush Lied, People Died" is easy to remember. It also serves as a good substitute for thinking. Who said Fox News was the best in propaganda?

From the Washington Post:

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.
By Fred HiattMonday, June 9, 2008; A17

Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find
sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People
Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said. There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally
substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery
vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in
"Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the
"Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.

But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the
inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support
for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that
will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without theneed to fictionalize more.

If Tax revenue =19% of GDP Increase GDP for More Revenue

A Wall Street Journal article by Economic researcher David Ranson explains that since 1950 no matter what the tax rate, the revenue collected will be about 19.5% of the GDP. This has held true for 60 years. The issue is that since rich people are experts at making money work, and since rich people don't like to pay taxes, when the taxes go up, they figure out ways to keep from paying taxes. This often includes making less money so they can keep what they earn.

This lends support to the concept that lower taxes for the rich (not everyone, just the experts) creates a better economy for everyone. Interesting.

Let my Resources go!

In a column published by the Miami Herald today, activist Gal Luft outlines the effects of our continued oil dependence. His prescription is to have Congress mandate flex fuel at a manufacturer cost of $100 per car. I am not sure whether I trust his math, or his insistence on new government mandates, because if the solution is that cheap, why not convert current autos to support flex fuel? Of course I'll await an answer. I'd put $1000 into my car to support US independence, and lower my gas cost.


Until that answer comes, I would say:

While our dependency on oil is cramping our economic style, we must also concede that we have brought this upon ourselves by bowing to those who claim to be protectors of "the environment."

These self appointed protectors along with their elected official followers have prevented us from lowering the cost of gas by restricting our supply of gas. This has happened in 3 crippling ways.

First there is an uncalculated supply of oil off of the costs of Florida, Texas and California. There is also the well publicized supply available in the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve. We have been blocked from getting it. The reasons offered are not acceptable when gas is over $3.00 a gallon.

Second, once the oil is harvested it must be refined, and unreasonable regulations have stood as a roadblock to building new refineries for a quarter of a century.

Third, alternative energy has been blocked by similar unreasonable legislation. When other industrialized nations can depend on nuclear power for more than 75% of their needs, we have surely hobbled ourselves by waiting to build new reactors.

These factors have added to the opportunity seen by by competing nations to weaken us in ways which go far beyond the price we pay at the pump. Move these obstacles, and we will still have years to suffer, but we will at least allow ourselves a certain and proven outlet.

What else is there to say.?