"C'mon America, how y'all like to freak? Do you honk the chest or pinch a cheek?"
WATCH: Trump Says Chagos Deal Is “Terrible”
2 days ago
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
Obama vs Romney the mass debate
Tuesday, 30 October 2012
Why you shouldn't vote for Barack Obama
The post below was spreading round the web yesterday, I have reposted it to keep it moving along and persuading the as yet undecided US voters.
Conservative bloggers in the #VRWC unite to defeat Obama
A half-dozen conservative bloggers have united and will all have the same post on their blogs today in an effort to help defeat President Obama. Please read this post in its entirety and be sure to go visit each bloggers site via the links. I would also encourage anyone to reblog or link this post to get the word out to as many people as possible. Romney may not be the first choice for some of these contributors, but we can all agree that Obama must go so help us spread the word! Join us to help the undecided vote to stop the destruction of America!"Why bankruptcy is preferable to bailouts" by Spellchek
President Obama has been on a chest-thumping tour touting the success of
the bailouts both in the auto industry as well as the financial
industry.Supporters and critics alike have focused upon what constitutes
a success.Some will calculate the cost to the taxpayers.Others will
focus on the jobs saved.It is these glass half-empty/half-full arguments
that highlight the crux of the problem.Bailouts v. bankruptcy is not an
apples to apples comparison.
A bailout by its very nature is the epitome of a reward for past indiscretions.The idea is how best to cushion the blow and alleviate the pain.The fear card plays a big role here as witnessed a full-fledged campaign to warn us of the disaster awaiting should we decline to bailout a failing company/industry.Then to make it worse,we saw government picking the winners and losers in the fallout.
A bankruptcy is intended as a poison pill as much as a legal recourse to alleviate a failing business model.It's called moral hazard.It is painful by design so it will have a preventative effect.The path chosen by Obama eliminates this.Companies/industries know they can operate with high risk or inefficient practices when an implied guarantee of a bailout is always awaiting.
The key difference is that implied guarantee.It enables risky behavior and distorts the free market.And why not?When you know there is reward as opposed to pain available,who wouldn't engage in high risk/high reward practices?Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enabled the housing bubble accordingly.AIG and the other players in the banking sector engaged in the derivatives market with our 401(k)s and pensions as monopoly money.
Bailouts encourage and enable bad business practices.Bankruptcy penalizes it.So when you question whether or not Obama succeeded with his bailouts,you should instead be asking why he engages in a policy that promotes risky investments and inefficient business practices that will eventually require you the taxpayer to pay for it.
A bailout by its very nature is the epitome of a reward for past indiscretions.The idea is how best to cushion the blow and alleviate the pain.The fear card plays a big role here as witnessed a full-fledged campaign to warn us of the disaster awaiting should we decline to bailout a failing company/industry.Then to make it worse,we saw government picking the winners and losers in the fallout.
A bankruptcy is intended as a poison pill as much as a legal recourse to alleviate a failing business model.It's called moral hazard.It is painful by design so it will have a preventative effect.The path chosen by Obama eliminates this.Companies/industries know they can operate with high risk or inefficient practices when an implied guarantee of a bailout is always awaiting.
The key difference is that implied guarantee.It enables risky behavior and distorts the free market.And why not?When you know there is reward as opposed to pain available,who wouldn't engage in high risk/high reward practices?Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enabled the housing bubble accordingly.AIG and the other players in the banking sector engaged in the derivatives market with our 401(k)s and pensions as monopoly money.
Bailouts encourage and enable bad business practices.Bankruptcy penalizes it.So when you question whether or not Obama succeeded with his bailouts,you should instead be asking why he engages in a policy that promotes risky investments and inefficient business practices that will eventually require you the taxpayer to pay for it.
"The Libyan Scandal" by What Would The Founders Think
Politicians lie. There is nothing that is earth-shattering about this
statement. Presidents are politicians and they generally adhere to the
stereotype.
There have been exceptions to the rule, but Presidents like Washington and Garfield are few and far between.
Sometimes presidents lie with the best of intentions. More often than not they lie to protect themselves and their careers.
But while the reasons presidents lie are probably as numerous as the lies that they tell, the depth of mendacity demonstrated by President Obama is unique in American political history. It is not merely that he will do or say anything to remain in office, but the reason he will do or say anything to remain in power - his hatred of American pre-eminence on the world stage. We have never had a president who felt it his mission to reduce the nation to benefit other nations.
It is an established fact that Obama is a devotee of Saul Alinsky - a completely amoral - "ends justify any means" individual. Obama has learned his lessons well and seeks to bring America down a peg by any and all means necessary. Obama is apparently quite comfortable with Lenin's adage, "You've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet."
It is only when one understands Obama's motivations and complete lack of morality, that one can understand how this callous president could refer to the death of an American ambassador and other Americans in Libya as "bumps in the road." One has to wonder, where does that road lead?
There have been exceptions to the rule, but Presidents like Washington and Garfield are few and far between.
Sometimes presidents lie with the best of intentions. More often than not they lie to protect themselves and their careers.
But while the reasons presidents lie are probably as numerous as the lies that they tell, the depth of mendacity demonstrated by President Obama is unique in American political history. It is not merely that he will do or say anything to remain in office, but the reason he will do or say anything to remain in power - his hatred of American pre-eminence on the world stage. We have never had a president who felt it his mission to reduce the nation to benefit other nations.
It is an established fact that Obama is a devotee of Saul Alinsky - a completely amoral - "ends justify any means" individual. Obama has learned his lessons well and seeks to bring America down a peg by any and all means necessary. Obama is apparently quite comfortable with Lenin's adage, "You've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet."
It is only when one understands Obama's motivations and complete lack of morality, that one can understand how this callous president could refer to the death of an American ambassador and other Americans in Libya as "bumps in the road." One has to wonder, where does that road lead?
"Barack Hussein Obama & The Race Card" by Mind Numbed Robot
Barack Hussein Obama was swept into office by a wave of voters willing
to give the new guy a shot. He offered a chance to redeem America from
its original sin and at the same time promised to end the bi-partisan
bickering of politics as usual in the DC beltway. He was a relative
unknown on the national scene and took every advantage of that fact.
After all, when a candidate doesn't have a record to campaign on, it's
much easier to paint himself as the elixir for the times.
Four years later, we know a lot more about the man at the helm of our ship of state and it should be clear that Obama was either not ready for the task he was given or his prescriptions did not work as advertised. In fact, if they were meant to heal a nation of its economic malaise and draw the political parties together in some magical union of left and right then the cure was worse than the disease. The patient should switch doctors, stat.
Too many also, voted for Obama under the premise that he would close the supposed divide between the races, a flag his surrogates in the media fly on his behalf but one he seldom raises himself, as if to stay above the fray. Indeed, the subject of Obamas race is ever in play by the media and that too has had the opposite effect than what Americans were promised, namely, more division, not less.
Sooner or later Barack Hussein Obama must lose his pigment to be judged by actions and results. That time is now. Americans must look at the man without the rainbow goggles and flowery rhetoric to discern what he and his party have accomplished in 4 years. We must decide if we are pleased with the results of Obama's Transformational Vision for America:
An America that believes the Constitution is flawed and must be remade or flat-out ignored.
An America that owes the world an endless apology.
An America that is not the last bastion if freedom in the world, not that shining city on the hill, but just another third world ghetto.
My friends, America deserves and demands better than Barack Hussein Obama's dismal vision for our future. We must make that message crystal clear on November 6th in numbers that cannot be denied or ignored.
Four years later, we know a lot more about the man at the helm of our ship of state and it should be clear that Obama was either not ready for the task he was given or his prescriptions did not work as advertised. In fact, if they were meant to heal a nation of its economic malaise and draw the political parties together in some magical union of left and right then the cure was worse than the disease. The patient should switch doctors, stat.
Too many also, voted for Obama under the premise that he would close the supposed divide between the races, a flag his surrogates in the media fly on his behalf but one he seldom raises himself, as if to stay above the fray. Indeed, the subject of Obamas race is ever in play by the media and that too has had the opposite effect than what Americans were promised, namely, more division, not less.
Sooner or later Barack Hussein Obama must lose his pigment to be judged by actions and results. That time is now. Americans must look at the man without the rainbow goggles and flowery rhetoric to discern what he and his party have accomplished in 4 years. We must decide if we are pleased with the results of Obama's Transformational Vision for America:
An America that believes the Constitution is flawed and must be remade or flat-out ignored.
An America that owes the world an endless apology.
An America that is not the last bastion if freedom in the world, not that shining city on the hill, but just another third world ghetto.
My friends, America deserves and demands better than Barack Hussein Obama's dismal vision for our future. We must make that message crystal clear on November 6th in numbers that cannot be denied or ignored.
"US Relations With Islamic Countries — Another Reason To Vote For Romney" from Conservatives on Fire
Obama came into office with zero experience in anything useful. But,
narcissist that he is, he was sure that because his middle name was
Hussein and because he went to a Muslim school in Indonesia when he was a
child and because he had dreams from his Kenyan father that he could
single-handedly resolve all the problems between the Muslim nations of
the world and America.
Mitt Romney, of course, has no foreign affairs experience. But, we know that he has ben a very successful businessman. So, we can expect him, like a good businessman, to surround himself with the most capable people in foreign affairs that he can find. He would never nominate a woman to be Secretary of State whose only claim to fame was that she married a sexual predator who was once President of the United States. We know that a President Romney would never make a trip to Cairo to apologize for Americas past actions in the area nor would he bow to a Saudi king. A president Romney would not have ended the war in Iraq without maintaining a large air base we had there for strategic reason just because the Iraqi government, that we helped to bring about, didn't want us there. A president Romney would never have announced two years in advance our withdrawal from Afghanistan giving the Taliban no reason to seek peace. A President Romney would have supported rebels in Iran in 2009. He would never have permitted his Secretary of State to train young Arabs from North Africa on how to organize protests against their governments. There never would have been an Arab Spring and there would still be the tenuous stability in the Middle-East held for the last forty years. Our embassies would not have been left unprotected and we would not have a dead ambassador and three of his staff in Libya. And, if there had been attacks on our people in that region, a president Romney would not have tried to place the blame on some stupid You Tube video when it was obviously a well planned terrorist attack. And, following some such attack, a president Romney would not have gone before the UN General Assembly and, at first defend our constitutionally protected right of free speech, only to turn around and say that we can't let the world be won by those who insult Islam. And, a President Romney would not be seeking emergency aid for Egypt just after their Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi, stood in front of the UN General Assembly and told America where they could stuff it.
A President Romney may not be able to bring peace to the Muslim nations, not after the mess Barack Obama has made of our relations there; but we can know that he would deal with those nations from a position of strength and not of weakness, as Obama has done. Because of Obama, the Muslim world is a more dangerous place. Ask yourself, if trouble breaks out in that region, who would you rather have as the US president?
On November 6, 2012, vote for Mitt Romney!
Mitt Romney, of course, has no foreign affairs experience. But, we know that he has ben a very successful businessman. So, we can expect him, like a good businessman, to surround himself with the most capable people in foreign affairs that he can find. He would never nominate a woman to be Secretary of State whose only claim to fame was that she married a sexual predator who was once President of the United States. We know that a President Romney would never make a trip to Cairo to apologize for Americas past actions in the area nor would he bow to a Saudi king. A president Romney would not have ended the war in Iraq without maintaining a large air base we had there for strategic reason just because the Iraqi government, that we helped to bring about, didn't want us there. A president Romney would never have announced two years in advance our withdrawal from Afghanistan giving the Taliban no reason to seek peace. A President Romney would have supported rebels in Iran in 2009. He would never have permitted his Secretary of State to train young Arabs from North Africa on how to organize protests against their governments. There never would have been an Arab Spring and there would still be the tenuous stability in the Middle-East held for the last forty years. Our embassies would not have been left unprotected and we would not have a dead ambassador and three of his staff in Libya. And, if there had been attacks on our people in that region, a president Romney would not have tried to place the blame on some stupid You Tube video when it was obviously a well planned terrorist attack. And, following some such attack, a president Romney would not have gone before the UN General Assembly and, at first defend our constitutionally protected right of free speech, only to turn around and say that we can't let the world be won by those who insult Islam. And, a President Romney would not be seeking emergency aid for Egypt just after their Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi, stood in front of the UN General Assembly and told America where they could stuff it.
A President Romney may not be able to bring peace to the Muslim nations, not after the mess Barack Obama has made of our relations there; but we can know that he would deal with those nations from a position of strength and not of weakness, as Obama has done. Because of Obama, the Muslim world is a more dangerous place. Ask yourself, if trouble breaks out in that region, who would you rather have as the US president?
On November 6, 2012, vote for Mitt Romney!
"Supreme Court is Another Reason to Vote Romney This November" by Motorcitytimes.com
I didn't support Romney in the primaries. However, after it became clear
that he was going to become our nominee, I had an offline discussion
with a smart and passionate Ron Paul supporter.
We discussed the wisdom of voting for, what amounts to, my second choice candidate. We bantered back and forth a few times then I said "no matter how bad you think Romney is, he would never nominate a left-wing lunatic like Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court." And I added, "Justice Kennedy has announced he plans to retire sometime after the 2012 election and Ginsberg is no spring chicken."
What is worse, I said this to my passionate Libertarian friend before Justice Roberts flipped his vote in the ObamaCare debacle underscoring the urgency of getting more Constitutionalist Justices on the Court.
Intellectually, I understand why some passionate Libertarians and Conservatives want to sit out the upcoming elections. They are tired of holding their noses while voting for 'the lesser of two evils.'
However, the prospect of Obama getting TWO MORE Supreme Court appointments, shifting the court even further to the left should frighten all freedom loving Americans into action.
Imagine four Obama Supreme Court Appointees blocking conservative reforms while rubber stamping every left-wing agenda item for the next 25 years.
If this happens, Obama will have succeeded in fundamentally transforming America.
We discussed the wisdom of voting for, what amounts to, my second choice candidate. We bantered back and forth a few times then I said "no matter how bad you think Romney is, he would never nominate a left-wing lunatic like Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court." And I added, "Justice Kennedy has announced he plans to retire sometime after the 2012 election and Ginsberg is no spring chicken."
What is worse, I said this to my passionate Libertarian friend before Justice Roberts flipped his vote in the ObamaCare debacle underscoring the urgency of getting more Constitutionalist Justices on the Court.
Intellectually, I understand why some passionate Libertarians and Conservatives want to sit out the upcoming elections. They are tired of holding their noses while voting for 'the lesser of two evils.'
However, the prospect of Obama getting TWO MORE Supreme Court appointments, shifting the court even further to the left should frighten all freedom loving Americans into action.
Imagine four Obama Supreme Court Appointees blocking conservative reforms while rubber stamping every left-wing agenda item for the next 25 years.
If this happens, Obama will have succeeded in fundamentally transforming America.
"America's Need for Energy" by WyBlog
President Obama calls his energy strategy "all of the above". That's actually a good
description, because he's gung-ho for everything that's above the earth and
abosolutely opposed to using anything found below ground.
Coal? Not in his plans. And he's shuttering coal power plants as fast as he can, putting thousands of Americans out of work in the process. When he said he'd bankrupt the coal industry, he meant it.
Oil? Sorry, we can't drill for it, and we surely can't build pipelines to deliver it.
Natural Gas? Only if it magically rises to the surface without drilling or fracking.
Nuclear? He's instituted a moratorium on uranium mining. Harry Reid has ensured there's no place to store nuclear waste. And so there are no new plants on the horizon.
But solar power is the future! Just so long as you don't put all those solar panels anywhere near an endangered species or pristine wetland. And wind turbines are all the rage, unless they'd block the Kennedy clan's view or make too much noise near Barbra Streisand's house.
The real danger with all these changes to the power grid is instability. Those coal plants provide a valuable service, keeping the flow of electricity constant in the face of varying demand. Solar cells can't do that at night (or in the rain). And wind turbines don't spin without wind. So you can't flick a switch and expect them to work on a moment's notice. We'd better get used to the idea of brownouts, and probably rolling blackouts too.
Just imagine the next hot summer day when you go to switch on your air conditioner only to discover that Obama's "Smart Grid" has decided you're not on the list for extra electricity today. Because that's what's coming if we don't replace the 36,000 megawatts of generating capacity Obama has mothballed in the cause of saving the planet.
Strangely though President Obama insists everyone should drive an electric car. I suspect he's unclear on exactly where the electricity comes from, because as the EPA shuts down many of our existing power plants the supply of electricity keeps shrinking. Hanging solar panels on lampposts won't take up the slack either.
Yet if the price of gasoline keeps going up we may have no choice. California's environmental regulations are generally held up as a model for the nation. And thanks to those regulations California leads the way in gas prices, topping $5 per gallon. They're well on their way to fulfilling Steven Chu's dream.
So what's a concerned citizen to do? The good news is Governor Romney plans to take a more practical approach to energy policy if he's elected president. Drilling for oil and gas is not incompatible with protecting the environment. American ingenuity and engineering know-how is the best in the world. We can make our nation energy independent, create good jobs, and do it safely and efficiently.
When it comes to energy the choice is clear. President Obama will ensure that we freeze in the dark. Mitt Romney can keep America working, with a balanced approach that recognizes the value in coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and yes green technologies too.
And there you have it. Six very good reasons to vote against Barack Obama and
for Mitt Romney. On November 6th the choice is yours.
Coal? Not in his plans. And he's shuttering coal power plants as fast as he can, putting thousands of Americans out of work in the process. When he said he'd bankrupt the coal industry, he meant it.
Oil? Sorry, we can't drill for it, and we surely can't build pipelines to deliver it.
Natural Gas? Only if it magically rises to the surface without drilling or fracking.
Nuclear? He's instituted a moratorium on uranium mining. Harry Reid has ensured there's no place to store nuclear waste. And so there are no new plants on the horizon.
But solar power is the future! Just so long as you don't put all those solar panels anywhere near an endangered species or pristine wetland. And wind turbines are all the rage, unless they'd block the Kennedy clan's view or make too much noise near Barbra Streisand's house.
The real danger with all these changes to the power grid is instability. Those coal plants provide a valuable service, keeping the flow of electricity constant in the face of varying demand. Solar cells can't do that at night (or in the rain). And wind turbines don't spin without wind. So you can't flick a switch and expect them to work on a moment's notice. We'd better get used to the idea of brownouts, and probably rolling blackouts too.
Just imagine the next hot summer day when you go to switch on your air conditioner only to discover that Obama's "Smart Grid" has decided you're not on the list for extra electricity today. Because that's what's coming if we don't replace the 36,000 megawatts of generating capacity Obama has mothballed in the cause of saving the planet.
Strangely though President Obama insists everyone should drive an electric car. I suspect he's unclear on exactly where the electricity comes from, because as the EPA shuts down many of our existing power plants the supply of electricity keeps shrinking. Hanging solar panels on lampposts won't take up the slack either.
Yet if the price of gasoline keeps going up we may have no choice. California's environmental regulations are generally held up as a model for the nation. And thanks to those regulations California leads the way in gas prices, topping $5 per gallon. They're well on their way to fulfilling Steven Chu's dream.
So what's a concerned citizen to do? The good news is Governor Romney plans to take a more practical approach to energy policy if he's elected president. Drilling for oil and gas is not incompatible with protecting the environment. American ingenuity and engineering know-how is the best in the world. We can make our nation energy independent, create good jobs, and do it safely and efficiently.
When it comes to energy the choice is clear. President Obama will ensure that we freeze in the dark. Mitt Romney can keep America working, with a balanced approach that recognizes the value in coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and yes green technologies too.
Choose wisely!
Monday, 8 October 2012
That nice Jeremy Vine (updated)
I never had much of an opinion about Jeremy Vine. I have not listened to his radio show although I believe his taste in music is not too shabby. I know who he is, could recognise him if I saw him on television and to be honest had no idea of his politics. In fact the only time I had mentioned Jeremy Vine on this blog, it was in this post where I commented:
'If you'd like to hear Ed Miliband making the same points on the Jeremy Vine show and being taken apart by Jeremy Vine then you can here for the next 7 days. It is nice to hear a BBC presenter actually tackle a Labour politician about their economic policy past, present and future.'
However this weekend it all changed when I was made aware of this tweet from Jeremy Vine..
Here's the brief Twitter conversation that ensued...
As you can see, my response was polite and clear. Jeremy Vine's response to me was disingenuous. My response picked him up on this and as a result 'that nice Jeremy Vine off of the radio' got personal and insulting.
I did respond...
As did Peter Martin, a tweeter new to me...
As well as Red Karateka...
To whom I responded...
I wasn't around much yesterday so didn't see the following responses to my tweet checking if this really was Jeremy Vine...
This morning I have responded...
I await Jeremy Vine's response.
UPDATE:
It would appear that Jeremy Vine has responded by blocking me on Twitter. Note that I just asked him a reasonable question and he was the one who insulted me. I wonder if he will respond to an email now?
'If you'd like to hear Ed Miliband making the same points on the Jeremy Vine show and being taken apart by Jeremy Vine then you can here for the next 7 days. It is nice to hear a BBC presenter actually tackle a Labour politician about their economic policy past, present and future.'
However this weekend it all changed when I was made aware of this tweet from Jeremy Vine..
I did respond...
I wasn't around much yesterday so didn't see the following responses to my tweet checking if this really was Jeremy Vine...
This morning I have responded...
I await Jeremy Vine's response.
UPDATE:
It would appear that Jeremy Vine has responded by blocking me on Twitter. Note that I just asked him a reasonable question and he was the one who insulted me. I wonder if he will respond to an email now?
Friday, 5 October 2012
The greatest orator of our generation?
Ezra Levant's review of the first presidential debate held in Denver on October 3, 2012.
I am so pleased that Barack Obama has finally been caught out for the fraud that he is. I know that the BBC and most of the US media have been protecting Barack Obama for years and won't stop now but it seems that the US public have finally been exposed to the truth.
Thursday, 4 October 2012
The BBC's view of the first Presidential debate
The BBC reluctantly report that: 'Polls show Romney won TV debate with Obama' but look at the comments that follow the report. Actually don't look at all the comments, just the 'Editor's picks', here they are as of now:
Anybody fancy lodging a complaint with the BBC re this example of bias, I don't have the time today?
'Comment numbe 382. vinod 51 Minutes ago This was just a debate so don't build bridges on sand.Election will tell more.It is sure U.S. has to change,that does not mean president.Obama is a good debater but he has history of more than past nearly four years to prove what he says so how can he be bolder?He is honest,no doubt..
Comment number 159. ScotUS1992 3 Hours ago I completely disagree that Obama was 'hesitant'. He was pausing when answering the questions because he was actually thinking about the question and giving intellectual answers! Romney seemed like he was reading off the prompter and as if he spent the night before memorising a script - he basically sounded like an actor, but without the emotion of a normal person.
Comment number 79. AndyEsbjerg 4 Hours ago There is only one poll that matters, and that is the election itself! I just hope that voters remember which party got them into this economic mess in the first place. Romney strikes me as the type who wishes to "Divide and Rule", whereas Obama does seem to want to help the poorest and disadvantaged in US society. I ask Americans what do you want, equality for all, or winner takes all?
Comment number 73. Nikki 4 Hours ago I literally can not believe what i'm reading!?!?! Just because he gave a more "aggressive" debate, doesn't mean he knows how to run a country properly... I have not read a single piece of evidence to show that Romney would be good in power. So why is he even in the running still!?!?! Give us Barack! If the Americans are dim enough to want him out, then there should be a place for him here ^^
Comment number 65. Nick 4 Hours ago I do find it worrying how many people in the USA, subscribe to the GOP and its "small government"/"low taxes for the well off" agenda, which manifests itself in a distrust of a national health system. I bet most of these people would no longer have such a high opinion of "small government" if they found themselves in hard times and the government refused to help.'So of the five editor's picks, all five are pro-Obama none are pro-Romney. Who said that the BBC are biased? Are there really no decent pro-Romney comments that the BBC have received?Here's a few that I found:
'466. TeaPartyBrit 2 Minutes ago Shock Horror. A somewhat right wing US politician, a Republican even, comes across better in a debate with that darling of the left, Barack Obama. All you left wing, anti-Americans, spitting your careless bile, may have to face up to the fact that you socialists and your servants in the chattering classes do not have a monopoly on intellect, in the UK or the US. Watch Biden v Ryan.
464. Rather_Be_Cycling 3 Minutes ago Of course he did. FInally Romney's prudent economic vision gets through to voters without the endless "filtering" by the obscenely left-wing bias of the mass media.
463. Alexandre Bykov 3 Minutes ago Unfortunately, Obama's performance was flat. It seems that he could not do well without a teleprompter (?).
424. PhilSpace 30 Minutes ago 'Obama and Romney in Denver Dual' - the headline on the BBC want's to make you believe that this was close, they were equals. But the CNN and CBS data shows that this was a runaway victory for Romney. If you watch the video Obama was just outclassed and looked embarrased to be there. The headline said Romney 'won'. He didn't 'won' he won. BBC hate it that their guy 'lost'.'And that's just from the first three pages of comments. By 100% of the 'editor's picks' being pro-Obama, s the BBC not admitting that their editor is biased in favour of Barack Obama?
Anybody fancy lodging a complaint with the BBC re this example of bias, I don't have the time today?
Killer quote from last night's Presidential debate
It's by Mitt Romney:
"Mr. President, you're entitled as president to your airplane, and to your own house, but NOT YOUR OWN FACTS"
Thursday, 27 September 2012
How rich!
In all the fuss over Mitt Romney's tax returns and what percentage of earnings he paid in tax, including or excluding his charitable giving, a couiple of things caught my eye. First that the Democrats Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, the man who claimed Mitt Romney hasn't paid taxes for ten years on the Senate floor because "someone" told him that was the case, is refusing to release his own tax returns. The second is just how rich some of these members of the US Congress are. RollCall has a list of the richest 50 members of Congress:
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $305.46 Million
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $198.65 Million
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) $140.55 Million
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) $85.81 Million
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $83.08 Million
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) $79.11 Million
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) $72.09 Million
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) $56.80 Million
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $41.78 Million
Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio) $36.67 Million
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) $36.49 Million
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) $28.58 Million
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) $26.43 Million
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) $24.79 Million
Rep. Rick Berg (R-N.D.) $23.78 Million
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) $21.73 Million
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) $19.63 Million
Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) $19.09 Million
Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.) $17.41 Million
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) $15.57 Million
Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) $14.95 Million
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) $14.47 Million
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) $14.34 Million
Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) $13.69 Million
Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-N.Y.) $12.34 Million
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) $12.00 Million
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) $11.60 Million
Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) $10.75 Million
Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) $10.33 Million
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) $10.20 Million
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) $10.06 Million
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) $10.05 Million
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $10.01 Million
Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) $9.53 Million
Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) $9.17 Million
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) $9.01 Million
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) $8.95 Million
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) $8.94 Million
Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) $8.93 Million
Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) $8.81 Million
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) $8.41 Million
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) $7.69 Million
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) $7.65 Million
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) $7.48 Million
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) $7.10 Million
Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) $6.94 Million
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) $6.72 Million
Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) $6.47 Million
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) $6.28 Million
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) $6.14 Million
Staggering, I wonder how many British politicians would get close to these levels of wealth. Maybe Tony Blair really did want to Americanise British politics.
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $305.46 Million
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $198.65 Million
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) $140.55 Million
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) $85.81 Million
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $83.08 Million
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) $79.11 Million
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) $72.09 Million
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) $56.80 Million
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $41.78 Million
Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio) $36.67 Million
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) $36.49 Million
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) $28.58 Million
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) $26.43 Million
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) $24.79 Million
Rep. Rick Berg (R-N.D.) $23.78 Million
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) $21.73 Million
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) $19.63 Million
Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) $19.09 Million
Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.) $17.41 Million
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) $15.57 Million
Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) $14.95 Million
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) $14.47 Million
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) $14.34 Million
Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) $13.69 Million
Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-N.Y.) $12.34 Million
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) $12.00 Million
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) $11.60 Million
Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) $10.75 Million
Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) $10.33 Million
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) $10.20 Million
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) $10.06 Million
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) $10.05 Million
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $10.01 Million
Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) $9.53 Million
Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) $9.17 Million
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) $9.01 Million
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) $8.95 Million
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) $8.94 Million
Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) $8.93 Million
Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) $8.81 Million
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) $8.41 Million
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) $7.69 Million
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) $7.65 Million
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) $7.48 Million
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) $7.10 Million
Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) $6.94 Million
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) $6.72 Million
Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) $6.47 Million
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) $6.28 Million
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) $6.14 Million
Staggering, I wonder how many British politicians would get close to these levels of wealth. Maybe Tony Blair really did want to Americanise British politics.
Friday, 31 August 2012
Clint Eastwood's speech to the Republican National Conference
Do watch it all. Here thanks to The Washington Post is the full text of Clint Eastwood's speech:
'EASTWOOD: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Save a little for Mitt. (APPLAUSE) I know what you are thinking. You are thinking, what’s a movie tradesman doing out here? You know they are all left wingers out there, left of Lenin. At least that is what people think. That is not really the case. There are a lot of conservative people, a lot of moderate people, Republicans, Democrats, in Hollywood. It is just that the conservative people by the nature of the word itself play closer to the vest. They do not go around hot dogging it. (APPLAUSE) So -- but they are there, believe me, they are there. I just think, in fact, some of them around town, I saw Jon Voight, a lot of people around. (APPLAUSE) Jon’s here, an academy award winner. A terrific guy. These people are all like-minded, like all of us. So I -- so I’ve got Mr. Obama sitting here. And he’s -- I was going to ask him a couple of questions. But -- you know about -- I remember three and a half years ago, when Mr. Obama won the election. And though I was not a big supporter, I was watching that night when he was having that thing and they were talking about hope and change and they were talking about, yes we can, and it was dark outdoors, and it was nice, and people were lighting candles. They were saying, I just thought, this was great. Everybody is trying, Oprah was crying. (LAUGHTER) EASTWOOD: I was even crying. And then finally -- and I haven’t cried that hard since I found out that there is 23 million unemployed people in this country. (APPLAUSE) Now that is something to cry for because that is a disgrace, a national disgrace, and we haven’t done enough, obviously -- this administration hasn’t done enough to cure that. Whenever interest they have is not strong enough, and I think possibly now it may be time for somebody else to come along and solve the problem. (APPLAUSE) So, Mr. President, how do you handle promises that you have made when you were running for election, and how do you handle them? I mean, what do you say to people? Do you just -- you know -- I know -- people were wondering -- you don’t -- handle that OK. Well, I know even people in your own party were very disappointed when you didn’t close Gitmo. And I thought, well closing Gitmo -- why close that, we spent so much money on it. But, I thought maybe as an excuse -- what do you mean shut up? (LAUGHTER) OK, I thought maybe it was just because somebody had the stupid idea of trying terrorists in downtown New York City. (APPLAUSE) I’ve got to to hand it to you. I have to give credit where credit is due. You did finally overrule that finally. And that’s -- now we are moving onward. I know you were against the war in Iraq, and that’s okay. But you thought the war in Afghanistan was OK. You know, I mean -- you thought that was something worth doing. We didn’t check with the Russians to see how did it -- they did there for 10 years. (APPLAUSE) But we did it, and it is something to be thought about, and I think that, when we get to maybe -- I think you’ve mentioned something about having a target date for bringing everybody home. You gave that target date, and I think Mr. Romney asked the only sensible question, you know, he says, “Why are you giving the date out now? Why don’t you just bring them home tomorrow morning?” (APPLAUSE) And I thought -- I thought, yeah -- I am not going to shut up, it is my turn. (LAUGHTER) So anyway, we’re going to have -- we’re going to have to have a little chat about that. And then, I just wondered, all these promises -- I wondered about when the -- what do you want me to tell Romney? I can’t tell him to do that. I can’t tell him to do that to himself. (APPLAUSE) You’re crazy, you’re absolutely crazy. You’re getting as bad as Biden. (APPLAUSE) Of course we all now Biden is the intellect of the Democratic party. (LAUGHTER) Kind of a grin with a body behind it. (LAUGHTER) But I just think that there is so much to be done, and I think that Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are two guys that can come along. See, I never thought it was a good idea for attorneys to the president, anyway. (APPLAUSE) I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they’re always taught to argue everything, and always weight everything -- weigh both sides... MORE (INSERT ZACH) XXX I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they’re always taught to argue everything, always weigh everything, weigh both sides. EASTWOOD: They are always devil’s advocating this and bifurcating this and bifurcating that. You know all that stuff. But, I think it is maybe time -- what do you think -- for maybe a businessman. How about that? (APPLAUSE) A stellar businessman. Quote, unquote, “a stellar businessman.” And I think it’s that time. And I think if you just step aside and Mr. Romney can kind of take over. You can maybe still use a plane. (APPLAUSE) Though maybe a smaller one. Not that big gas guzzler you are going around to colleges and talking about student loans and stuff like that. (APPLAUSE) You are an -- an ecological man. Why would you want to drive that around? OK, well anyway. All right, I’m sorry. I can’t do that to myself either. (APPLAUSE) I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen. Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we -- we own this country. (APPLAUSE) We -- we own it. It is not you owning it, and not politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours. (APPLAUSE) And -- so -- they are just going to come around and beg for votes every few years. It is the same old deal. But I just think it is important that you realize , that you’re the best in the world. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican or whether you’re libertarian or whatever, you are the best. And we should not ever forget that. And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go. (APPLAUSE) Okay, just remember that. And I’m speaking out for everybody out there. It doesn’t hurt, we don’t have to be (AUDIENCE MEMBER): (inaudible) (LAUGHTER) I do not say that word anymore. Well, maybe one last time. (LAUGHTER) We don’t have to be -- what I’m saying, we do not have to be metal (ph) masochists and vote for somebody that we don’t really even want in office just because they seem to be nice guys or maybe not so nice guys, if you look at some of the recent ads going out there, I don’t know. (APPLAUSE) But OK. You want to make my day? (APPLAUSE) All right. I started, you finish it. Go ahead. AUDIENCE: Make my day! EASTWOOD: Thank you. Thank you very much.'Making fun of the Obamamessiah, the liberals will not be happy.
Tuesday, 28 August 2012
Saturday, 30 June 2012
Saturday, 12 May 2012
One rule for Barack Obama in 2008 and another Mitt Romney in 2012
The Washington Post has a long investigation into Mitt Romney's past, including some 'troubling incidents'. Perhaps you could point me at any similar article from 2008 examining the seriously troubling incidents from Barack Obama's past. If there wasn't one, then might I enquire why?
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
The treatment of dogs and the American political process
When it was reported that, when much younger, Mitt Romney had once put his dog on the roof of his car the US media went into one of its anti-Republican frenzies.However when it is reported that Barack Obama has admitted eating dog when younger, not so much media attention. Need I ask why?
Friday, 9 March 2012
Vetting Barack Obama
During the last US Presidential election the US and other media failed to subject Barack Obama to the levels of scrutiny that Republican candidates and other Democrats have and were subjected to. This year Andrew Breitbart promised to release videos that would show the real Barack Obama. Sadly Andrew Breitbart died earlier this year but the videos have started to emerge. Here's the first, that is not that earth-shattering but I predict more interesting ones will follow in due course.
Of course the video that I desperately want to to emerge is the one that the Los Angeles Times is allegedly "intentionally suppressing" of a 2003 banquet where the then state Senator Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist. The National Review reported that:
As the National Review asked in 2008:
The way that the liberal US and other western media (especially the BBC) have acted as campaign managers for Barack Obama is little short of disgusting but the way that they have hidden the truth about Barack Obama from the electorate is little short of criminal.
Of course the video that I desperately want to to emerge is the one that the Los Angeles Times is allegedly "intentionally suppressing" of a 2003 banquet where the then state Senator Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist. The National Review reported that:
'The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat’s press agency.'
As the National Review asked in 2008:
'Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor ... who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.The same question could be asked in 2012 replacing the name John McCain with Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum.
Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.
Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we’re pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y’know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?
Do we really have to ask?'
The way that the liberal US and other western media (especially the BBC) have acted as campaign managers for Barack Obama is little short of disgusting but the way that they have hidden the truth about Barack Obama from the electorate is little short of criminal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
