Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘PUMA’

I have to say it’s been quite entertaining to watch the parade of people withdraw themselves from nominated positions as they head over to find their places underneath the bus. It’s probably a  fleet of buses or a long train by now there are so many people under it!

 It seems many of them have a hard time remembering  to pay their taxes. Hmm are these the same people who were blathering on about how paying taxes was patriotic and we should all want to pay higher taxes? Isn’t that what Joe Biden said?

Of course I forgot to mention Bill Richardson who is currently under investigation by a federal grand jury in a pay to play scheme thus he had to withdraw from his nomination for Secretary of Commerce.

Then we have Tom Dashel and Nancy Killefer withdrawing for not paying taxes and Tim Giethner was confirmed despite having a similar embarassing problem. Not to mention the whole “nobody will work in my administration if they have been a lobbyist.” thing.

Give us a break! Now the media is finally starting to report on the plethora of problems. Well all I can say is where the hell were they for the last two years? How is it no one saw this coming? WE saw it coming! We told you so idiots!

I’ll tell you why no one saw this coming because the mainstream media deliberately played the role of public relations representative rather than do their job and report accurately the facts and or lack of them in an unbiased and professional manner. They in fact became more than a little responsible for the outcome of the primaries and the election and they will share the responsibility of the aftermath.

I will admit to being pleased with the decision to limit the salaries and bonuses of top executives of companies that take Bailout funds. I think pretty much everybody agrees on that except maybe the execs who will have to take a pay cut.

Listen if they want the taxpayers to bail them out they should expect some conditions. After all if they are in bad shape and need bailing out shouldn’t they be looking for ways to cut expenses and railse more capital? Isn’t that more reasonable than to continue spending on lavish office remodels or over the top business retreats? Or paying say, $400 Million to have your name on a stadium?

If they want us to foot the bill they should expect not to go on as though it’s business as usual. It’s not. Not when you need bailing out that is about as far from business as usual as you can get and still be in business and it dictates that you do some serious evaluation and re-tooling at the very least. To get out of the position where you need a bailout and get to a position where you make a profit they should be thinking this way already.

If they don’t like the conditions they should look elsewhere for help. Now if they want to pull their own fat out of the fire it is their business how they spend their gains. That’s the American way.

Though lately I’ve had some interesting conversations with people on this subject and find myself wondering what some people are really thinking. One friend suggested that we go even further and limit the salaries and bonuses of all company executives regardless of whether they accept bailout funds or whether they are private or public companies.

His theory is that no one can possibly make more than the president without having broken some law or regulation and without having screwed over “the rest of us”. My reaction was something like WTF?

I think that is way too far myself. Isn’t one of the greatest things about our country? Isn’t the American Dream the idea that if you have an idea or a product, a service or whatever and you do what it takes to make a sucsess the sky is the limit? The idea that anyone can make it regardless of who they are?

I understand the anger and the feeling that many times the Big Shots get where they are on the backs of the rest of us. I mean I get just as PO’das the next person over all these people who rip others off or waste money on stupid things then cry about needing a bailout even as their own bad management caused the problem but do we really want to go so far that nobody can make more than a set amount?

Who decides what that amount is? Will that amount be different for different people or will everybody have the same limits? What happens if your idea makes more than that? Should you not benefit from your efforts?

I’m all for doing what we can to preserve the idea of freedom we have here. I want to improve it as well by doing what we can to make all of us more free and insuring equality but if we get too involved in legislating people’s freedom it can have the adverse effect of making us all less free.

JMO what’s yours?

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

Pumas, Disappointed Democrats, Just Say No Dealers listen up!

At the end of the Democratic Primary season, this was the situation:

Popular Vote
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: 17,857,446,  (48.04%)
Senator Barack Obama: 17,584,649  (47.31%)

Pledged delegates

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: 1,730.5 (39.17%)
Senator Barack Obama:  1,747.5 (39.55%)

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D.phtml

Then, for no apparent good reason, in June Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosis decided THEY, not the delegates chosen by the electorate and not the superdelegates appointed via proper party procedure, were going to decide who would represent the top of the ticket for the general election. Now that same leadership wants YOU to legitimize their undemocratic and unprincipled methods by putting their selected candidate into the White House on November 4.

But WE can say no to the subversion of democratic principles within the Democratic Party. We can say no with our votes and by urging our fellow Democrats to pay attention to the particulars of the candidate Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi selected to represent the Democratic Party.

Put this ad on the air and let America know that our voices count.

Over the next 24 hours and across the internet, we as a community will urgently be raising money to run edgy and persuasive ads made by http://tdg.typepad.com/democrats_for_principle_b/ in key battleground states. Generous contributors have pledged $500 in matching funds. Your voice counts. Please contribute now.

Please go to Democrats For Principle Before Party !!!http://tdg.typepad.com/democrats_for_principle_b/– The Denver Group’s general election website, where you can donate to the cause and view other ads the group is running!

It’s more important than ever! Go PUMAS!

CQ

Read Full Post »

 A few words about justice and justification.

People can find a way to justify pretty much anything. The only requirement is the ability to momentarily (or in some cases permanently) suspend reality. It’s like a different facet of denial in that way.

Consider this, Al Capone, notorious mobster, murderer, breaker of the law, considered himself to be a misunderstood and persecuted individual who , in his own words, was a “great benefactor to the people”.

I guess he thought that his running of the gambling, prostitution and illegal liquor establishments was somehow a humanitarian effort. All those murders committed by him and at his request were obviously acts of “public service” and he should have gotten the keys to the city!  

Apparently to Capone the law and it’s enforcers were unfairly and unjustly persecuting him because they expected him to obey the laws of the land and they intended to stop him and prosecute him for not doing so. I suppose every criminal in the prison system probably thinks the same way. It’s part of their make up. If they admitted to themselves, or anyone for that matter, that they were in the wrong they might be forced to really think about their actions and the repercussions of them. Thus to them they are innocent and wronged by the system.

The Justice system sees things quite differently indeed. If you break the law you will pay the price. Message: Don’t break the law and you won’t have a problem.

We’ve seen an awful lot of this in the last 19 months. It seems lots of law breaking has been “justified” and gone unpunished.

A prime example is the recent hacking into the personal email account of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. It’s old news to anybody who surfs the net and it’s starting to get some exposure on MSM. Her personal email account was hacked, password changed and screen shots of her emails, contact list, photos of her family and email addresses and cell phone numbers of her family were published on the web by the hacker.

I have heard time and again from Obama supporters that the hacker was supposedly justified because there were reports she might be using her personal email to hide work related things she doesn’t want the public to see. Bullshit! Even if that were the case it is for officials and law enforcement to find out not some snot-nosed college punk who proudly calls himself an Obamacrat.

We are not allowed to take the law into our own hands in this country for a reason. So even if the allegations were true (the hacker himself admitted there was nothing incriminating in the emails) it is not the “job” of non-professionals to break the law to find out.

I have also heard that Sarah Palin supposedly “deserved” it or that this should prove she is incapeable of being VP because her email was hacked. First off who deserves to have their privacy invaded? Second how in the hell is that her fault or does it prove that she is not up for the job? Someone broke the law and invaded her privacy but we’re told that this makes her unqualified?

So what about when Obama’s, Hillary’s and McCain’s passport info was accessed illegally?  (by people connected with the Obama campaign no less) Wouldn’t that make Obama unqualified too by those standards? I mean if it makes Palin unqualified how come Obama was just a “victim” when it happened to him? Answer: because according to Obama and the Obamacrats he is ALWAYS the victim in any circumstance. It’s just a given.

When ever there is any question they automatically give the points to their guy just like the RBC meeting in May when the DNC gave Obama the uncommitted delegates and then the gave him 4 delegates that Senator Clinton earned even though his name wasn’t even on the ballot. Yup! And they broke their own sunshine rules to do it with a secret vote during their 2 1/2 hour lunch break.

Oh but they were “justified” in doing so because, well, because they wanted Obama to win. We’re up to here with their “justification”.

This is far from the first time Obama and his supporters have broken the law. Hillary supporters have been hacked, threatened, had their blogs shut down, been kicked off of previously democratic web sites that are nothing more than Obama shills now and the list goes on and on. Alot of these activities are illegal but we’re told that the Bots are justified and if we didn’t have the sites there they wouldn’t be able to hack them. It’s our own fault according to these people because we won’t just shut up and go away.

So I guess in their view if you speak out against them or speak out for what is right you are standing in their way and according to them that is a crime. I have news for them it is not a crime to refuse to vote for someone. It is not a crime to speak out for what you beleive is right. In fact is the opposite. Speaking out against corruption and evil is a civil duty of the highest order!

Then we have the fact that the hacker in question turns out to be the 20 year old son of a Democratic Senator from Tennessee. According to one MSM source he says “he was just playing around” and there are supposedly no charges being filed? That’s what I heard on CBS last night anyway.

I don’t care if he was playing around or not it is a crime to access someone’s personal correspondence and it should be treated as such. Plus they said he was the son of a “prominent democrat” but failed to mention just how prominent. Just one more example of how Obama has the media in his pocket.

If this was my email account, or yours, or anybody else’s they would be steaming mad and rightly so. Why is it only a crime if it’s against Obama but not when it’s against his opponents? This kid should be prosecuted for breaking the law and the media should be honest about the fact this is a crime and who his father really is. We are tired of them protecting the politicians they want to protect and crucifying the ones they don’t.

Actually we are tired of the media as a whole period. They should just go find jobs as hot dog vendors or carnival workers and leave the news to real journalists with scruples and ethics.

What about the crime Obama committed by trying to stall the troops withdrawal from Iraq for his own political gain? It is a crime. It is a felony. He violated the Logan Act. It is treason.

Thanks to Shtuey at http://ohmyvalve.blogspot.com/ for the excellent video!

Not to mention the fact it’s about as phony and hypocritical as you can get to campaign on the whole “Stop the war and bring our troops home” all the while wheeling and dealing behind the scenes to manipulate the public.

I suppose IF we hear anything about it from the MSM it will be somehow “justified” too. I suppose Obama is “justifying” any deaths that occur because of the delays caused by his meddling as a sacrifice that must be made in order for him to gain control and therefore “save” us! Pfffft! Don’t even get me started on that one!

Every single one of the soldiers serving overseas is worth more than a hundred Obamas! Every single one of them is out there fighting to protect the rights Obama would bargain away at the drop of a hat and issue some lame “justification” afterwords. He is not worth the spit they shine their boots with!

On a lighter note I found this on http://harddriller.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/new-nickel-design/ while tag surfing!

It was just too funny not to steal!

 

Oh such sweet truth!

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

Nice! Real patriotic NOT! Here is the first of three articles that tell the truth about how Obama feels about Iraq and our troops there.

Obama Interferes In US-Iraq Agreement

 

In direct interference in US foreign policy and the execution of the war in Iraq, Barack Obama today told the Iraqi foreign minister, according to the New York Times’ Caucus blog report,

While the Bush administration would like to see an agreement reached before the summer’s political conventions, Mr. Obama said today that he opposed such a timetable. 

“My concern is that the Bush administration, in a weakened state politically, ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it’s my administration or Senator McCain’s administration,” Mr. Obama said.

According to Obama, “The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made.”
What else could he say when confronted with such effrontery by someone not the president who might be.

The CBS reporton the phone conversation doesn’t think it’s significant enough to mention this part of their conversation, nor that regardless of the progress that’s been made Obama says he’s firm on withdrawing US troops quickly. Jenifer Rubin at Commentary’s Contentions blog, however, correctly sums it up: “Great Surge, Let’s Quit.”

The Washington Post’s editorial today says of the agreement,

It means that Iraq, a country with the world’s second largest oil reserves and a strategic linchpin of the Middle East, just might emerge from the last five years of war and turmoil as an American ally, even if its relations with Iran remain warm. So it’s hard to fathom why Democrats in Congress have joined Ayatollah Khamenei in denouncing the U.S.-Iraqi agreements even before they are written….

 

Ed Morrissey comments,

So why haven’t the Democrats shown more enthusiasm? They would have to admit that they were wrong about the surge, wrong about Maliki, and wrong to declare defeat fourteen months ago. Democrats from Barack Obama down have insisted that the US should abandon Iraq as a failed mission rather than adjust to better strategies. Had the Bush administration listened to them, Iran would already be in charge of Iraq through Moqtada al-Sadr.

 

Another example to add to the many that Barack Obama is a dangerous poseur.

Bruce Kesler | Jun. 16, 2008 | 4:52 PM

So not only did he meddle to try and influence the elections he used the troops that he claims he is so concerned about to do it! The media did know but said nothing. I see the pattern is not straying from the traditional Obama “whatever it takes to climb the ladder” mindset that we’ve all come to know so well.

Here’s more:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_tour_de_farce_122049.htm?page=0

 

O’s Tour de Farce  by Amir Taheri 

Posted: 3:24 am
July 29, 2008

TERMED a “learning” trip, Sen. Barack Obama‘s eight- day tour of eight nations in the Middle East and Europe turned out to be little more than a series of photo ops to enhance his international credentials.

“He looked like a man in a hurry,” a source close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week. “He was not interested in what we had to say.”

Still, many Iraqis liked Obama’s claim that the improved situation in Iraq owed to Iraqi efforts rather than the Gen. David Petraeus-led surge. In public and private comments, Obama tried to give the impression that the Iraqis would’ve achieved the same results even without the greater resources America has poured into the country since 2007.

In private, though, Iraqi officials admit that Obama’s analysis is “way off the mark.” Without the surge, the Sunni tribes wouldn’t have switched sides to help flush out al Qaeda. And the strong US military presence enabled the new Iraqi army to defeat Iran-backed Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad.

Nevertheless, in public at least, no Iraqi politician wants to appear more appreciative of American sacrifices than the man who may become the next US president.

Iraqis were most surprised by Obama’s apparent readiness to throw away all the gains madein Iraq simply to prove that he’d been right in opposing the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein. “He gave us the impression that the last thing he wanted was for Iraq to look anything like a success for the United States,” a senior Iraqi officialtold me. “As far as he is concerned, this is Bush’s war and must end in lack of success, if not actual defeat.”

Even so, Obama knows that most Americans believe they’re still at war with an enemy prepared to use terror against them. So he can’t do what his antiwar base wants – declare an end to the War on Terror and the start of a period of love and peace in which “citizens of the world” build bridges between civilizations.

That’s why Obama is trying to adopt Afghanistan as “his” war. He claims that Bush’s focus on Iraq has left Afghanistan an orphan in need of love and attention. Even though US military strategy is to enable America to fight two major wars simultaneously, Obama seems to believe that only one war is possible at a time.

But what does that mean practically?

Obama says he wants to shift two brigades (some of his advisers say two battalions) from Iraq to Afghanistan. But where did that magicalfigure come from? From NATO, which has been calling on its members to provide more troops since 2006.

NATO wants the added troops mainly to improve the position of its reserves in Afghanistan. The alliance doesn’t face an actual shortage of combat units – it’s merely facing a rotation schedule that obliges some units to stay in the field for up to six weeks longer than is normal for NATO armies.

Overall, NATO hopes that its members will have no difficulty providing the 5,000 more troops it needs for a “surge.” So there’s no need for the US to abandon Iraq in order to help Afghanistan.

The immediate effect of Obama’s plan to abandon Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan is to ease pressure on other NATO members to make a greater contribution. Even in Paris, some critics think that President Nicolas Sarkozyshould postpone sending more troops until after the US presidential election. “If President Obamacan provide all the manpower needed in Afghanistan, there is no need for us to commit more troops,” said a Sarkozy security adviser.

Obama’s move would suit Sarkozy fine because he’s reducing the size of the French army and closing more than 80 garrisons. Other Europeans would also be pleased. German Chancellor Angela Merkelwill soon face a difficult general election in which her main rivals will be calling for an end to “the Afghan adventure.”

Today, with the sole exception of Spain (where the mildly anti-American Socialist Party is in power), pro-US parties govern Europe. These parties feel pressure from the Bush administration to translate their pro-American claims into actual support for the Afghanistan war effort. By promising to shoulder the burden, Obama is letting the European allies off the hook.

Obama doesn’t seem to have noticed the European scene’s subtleties. Despite his claim that he came to listen, he seems to have heard nothing of interest during his 10,000-mile trip.

Having announced his strategy before embarking on his “listening tour,” he couldn’t be expected to change his mind simply because facts on the ground offered a different picture.

In Paris, a friendly reporter asked the Illinois senator if there was anything that he’d heard or seen during his visit that might persuade him to alter anyaspect of his polices. Obama’s answer was clear: no.

Amir Taheri’s next book, “The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution,” is due out this fall.

 

So Obama saw the whole tour as a photo op. Not news. That he tried to interfere in foreign affairs for his own political gain? Big, game changing news. This article was from July, the previous one from June yet we haven’t really heard much about this until now. The media for the most part is beyond not doing their job they are now doing Obama’s job.

The latest again from the New York Post is by the same author and is dated today. Really informative.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”

“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.

There’s more. Click the link to read the entire article.

The idea you might get here from reading these things about Senator Obama is that he really doesn’t care as much as he claims about the troops and getting them home. He cares about how he can spin this to favor him in the election. How refreshingly new and full of hope and change! (Sarcasm off sorry  couldn’t resist)

Mr. We need to Just admit defeat and bring our guys home decided he wants them to stay a bit longer because he doesn’t want the Republicans to look less lik the Devil if people know that they did at least one thing right. The surge that Obama did not support actually worked to some degree and the American officials are actually working with the Iraqis to get things under control and get our troops headed home. Remember how hard he fought to admit the surge actually worked? How about the NAFTA thing with Canada anybody remember that? How he denied it all and then had to admit that he did just what he said he would not do. Pander to the guys he was railing against just to make him look “good”.

That’s a joke. Nothing could make him look good to me. Everthing about him screams narcicistic, arrogant fraud. He is not above using anybody and anything to further his own career and adgenda.

Oh I forgot to mention that what Obama did by trying to interfere in the politics of a foriegn country without authorization from our government is illegal. It is against The Logan Act.

So yes by any other name it is still a stinky, fake, hypocritical rose just the same! (Sorry Shakesphere!)

CQ

Read Full Post »

 

You know I’ve been back and forth with this many times over the last year or so. Should I just change my registration to Independent or Unaffiliated? Or should I stay a Dem because the only way I can affect real change is from within? Many of my fellow Dems and Hillary Supporters have been agonizing over this for quite a while now. Some have already left the party and I, for one, consider it a great loss.

Many of us have been considering who to give our votes to as we know we will not be voting for Obama. Most of us have been subjected to ridicule, scorn, Internet flaming and even real threats, stalking and in some cases abuse. We’ve lost friendships and family over it or at the very least those relationships are strained.

I’ve had several friends who have tried to convince me “for my own good” of course that it doesn’t really matter what happened in the primaries that it’s over now and I should just move forward.

In my experience “moving forward” is not going to do anything other than condoning the fraudulent process that got us here and therefore rewarding and inviting more of the same. If they get away with it this time they will use more voter suppression tactics and threats and intimidation to subvert the process next time. You can count on it. If you give in to it you are feeding it and it will grow.

You do not fix a problem by ignoring it’s existence or by allowing it to go on unchecked.

I have other friends who say I just need to get over my anger. Hillary lost, she endorsed Obama end of story. He has a D beside his name what else do I need to know?

Did she really lose? Who won the popular vote? Who got the most votes of any primary candidate ever? Why do Caucuses only represent about 3% of the population but they are allotted delegates in the same manner as primaries which represent a much larger percentage of the population?

What was the final delegate count really? I mean BEFORE the forced and scripted roll call that was halted for a fake show of unity. The pledged delegate count was very close before Obama decided to restore Michigan and Florida to full vote status yet they never reported how that changed the actual delegate counts.

The media and the DNC swept all that under the rug since they were already busy planning how to spend the profits they intended to make on this Obama Gravy Train.

Not to mention the uncommitted delegates and the four Clinton delegates that were given to him in Michigan even though he was not on the ballot. Now that those were full votes it makes twice many delegates he gained by fraudulent methods. It’s twice as many delegates for Hillary too. She won both states hands down. 

I  don’t think that’s something I want to get over. The day when there is no outrage at cheating will be a cold day in Hell in my book and the books of many, many people in this country.

Truthfully for many of us it ceased to be about Hillary Clinton on May 31st, 2008. That was the day it became about so much more than Hillary vs. Obama it became about right and wrong. it was the shock of seeing our “leadership” distort the rules and pervert the process in order to spot Obama a few points because I guess they knew he would need them to “win” that created the outrage and the movement that is PUMA.

They have only themselves to blame. In a democratic society cheating will always cause outrage. You could say it’s the expected reaction even. The fact that it was carried out by our own side does not make it acceptable. I feel as strongly about it as I do Rev. Wright and his racist, anti-American rants. There is no context in which that is acceptable.

Most people in this country are decent, hardworking people who care very much about the difference between right and wrong. They work very hard to live by those values and to instill them in their children. Party makes no difference to those people but truth does. As does honesty, integrity, loyalty and compassion. These are things most people feel very strongly about regardless of their typical voting preferences. Things like these are deal breakers.

I have also heard the Roe v Wade argument to death. Won’t happen, we have a Dem controlled congress. The Supreme Court Argument. The Palin is pro-life argument. I don’t know many republicans that aren’t so why would they think this is news? I’ve heard them all.

I’ve also gotten a chorus of defensive stuff too over the exposure of Obamabot behaviour. For instance my last post that linked to Hillbuzz and the video of Democratic Underground posters and their EBay listing of Sarah Palin’s 4 month old baby. Of course the fact that this was on a Democratic blog and the posters were long time members with 1000+ posts each would NOT suggest to me that this is a Republican strategy. Someone is faking it to make the Dems look bad. No it would not suggest that to me at all but you be the judge. Some people! Eyes rolling!

The other things they do also like the recent discovery by the custodian at Invesco Field of 84 trash bags filled with American flags, Obama/Biden campaign signs, empty pizza boxes and other assorted trash. The custodian found them in the dumpster and called around eventually getting in touch with the Veterans and the Boy Scouts who sorted, rolled and recycled them by handing them out at a GOP campaign event. Flags that people did not want to keep were to be donated to be placed on Veteran’s graves.

The fact that Democrats who were touting this convention as the “Greenest Ever” would be so wasteful and that they would treat our flag with such disrespect is appalling to most people. I have heard though that this too must have been republicans, that everybody throws flags away, that they were supposedly “stolen” and intended for reuse. I’ve heard that it wouldn’t have been the Dems’ fault the custodian would be to blame. Obviously they didn’t read the part of the story where it said the custodian found them in the dumpster and I saw photos they were not being recycled they were in with the garbage.

Anybody remember when Obama went to Oregon and his people set up a port-a-potty on the memorial for a fallen police officer? That was probably republicans too. I know LOTS of republicans who go around volunteering to help set up for Obama events. (Sarcasm OFF.)

I can identify with that a tiny bit however because I know my friends are really just in denial. They do not want to admit to themselves that people could do these kinds of things and the idea that it could be members of the party you have held dear and worked hard for, been a loyal soldier for, well that’s a bitter pill to swallow.

I have a feeling though that swallow it they will. They have 54 days to let it sink in. 54 days to decide to do the right thing. I’m confident many of my friends will do just that because in the end they are decent, hardworking and compassionate people. They will not legitimize the atrocities that took place in the name of a win at any cost quest for power. They will not give their votes or their trust to those who cannot be trusted.

Obama and his supporters will understand in November when people go to the polls with determination to do what is right and what is best for our country.

In the end it is far less important who you vote for than who you vote against.

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

This one has been simmering for a while now. I have been a Dem all my life. I am a Dem because of what they stood for. True democratic princials like equality for everybody, We the People, One Voice, One Vote, the lifting up and support of the middle and lower classes. In fact Democrats as I knew them were the ultimate good guys. They stood for eliminating classes and making all Americans truly equal.

We have some great examples to look up to in our party. Some great people who inspire us and make us strive for those great causes the party aspires to. Names like Franklin Delenor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F Kennedy and Bill Clinton the only two term Democrat president in the last fourty years, just to name a few. In my opinion we as democrats need to go back to our core and really find and hone our message of equality and opportunity, the message that these great leaders were so passionate about instead of reverting to the childish and disgusting tactics that have been taking place in this election cycle. In particular I am talking about the last few days since John McCain announced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

The internet has been abuzz with rumors flying about like millions of flies on shit. Sorry for the crude reference there but it’s truly appropriate I think. The Obamabloggers and even the media pundits (most not all) have been going on and on with things that are so not in line with the message they preach.

They claim they are the party who treats women as equals (Hillary supporters would say different) yet they are starting rumors that Gov. Palin’s last child was really her daughter’s and that she lied and faked a pregnacy and childbirth to cover it up. (Gotta admit it’s hard to fake a childbirth! There was a hospital and an attending Dr after all.) They even started passing around photos and discussing if she were “fat enough” to have really been pregnant and if her daughter looked “fat enough” to have been the mother. How progressive and liberal of them.

Then they moved on to saying her son was born with Downs Syndrome because of supposedly bad pre-natal care. WTF? How would any of them be privy to the quality of her pre-natal care? Again sooo progressive and liberal. Feminist even. Snark!

Now Gov. Palin has disclosed that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant and they are standing behind her for making her own decision to marry the father and have the child. The Bots are saying how terrible that she has a daughter unmarried and pregnant as if it is not a part of life. Terribly progressive of them also to critisize not only this young girl but her family for standing by her and John McCain for knowing about it and still having the gall to pick this woman for his running mate.

I think it shows how much this woman stands by what she says. The daughter chose to keep her child and the family chose to support her. Sounds to me like she walks the walk of someone who believes in family values. Contrary to the bot’s belief that this makes her some sort of hypocrite it actually shows that she would not turn her back on her daughter in a time of great need as to do so would be for more hypocritical.

The fact that McCain knew ahead of time and still picked her shows that he cares about more than just “appearances for politics’ sake” and that what Gov. Palin brings to the ticket is more important to him than what some bigoted people who would rather throw the girl to the wolves think. In other words her intellect, integrity and strengths are what he made his choice on.

If, like me you might have wondered where some of this stuff originated I will link to a site that did some digging into this. Before you say it I know this is a conservative site. They, unlike the Dems will stand up for their own so they have gotten to the bottom of it. If there were more liberal sites that would be brave enough to publish this stuff and digg into it I would have linked to them but the so called liberal siteslike DailyKos and HuffPoand the reat of the Obamaphiles are the ones spreading this crap as you will see below.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31096_Whos_Behind_Anti-Palin_Smear_Site

Nice huh? I mean that it’s definitely Obama supporters is bad enough but they were even stupid enough to re-direct the traffic to Obama’s website is beyond belief. Again I must say how progressive and liberal and pro-women’s rights all this crap is. NOT!

I have heard it all from the smears mentioned above to the other aguments that I’ll go into here. The Obama team and supporters were obviously knocked for a loop here. They did not expect, have a plan for or react to this in anything even resembling a demeanor befitting a presidential candidate.

The Dems are quickly becoming everything they claim to hate these days. Who are the real hypocrites here?

I’ve been told that it’s just shameful that McCain only picked her to win! Imagine that. Did they think he was trying to pick someone who would cause him to lose? It’s a clear case of pandering! Well what do you expect? Isn’t that what politicians do? Try to get your vote?

She doesn’t have experience. Yeah because you know actually being a Mayor or a Govenor where you really have to make executive decisions is not helpful experience at all. I suppose Mr. Inexperience himself who’s very thin record is all legislative and not anything resembling actual leadership skills at the top of the ticket is okbut someone with more actual experience as VP is not. Do they realize how dumb this argument sounds?

Then there’s the totally sexist response about the fact she’s a former beauty queen, has five kids (how irresponsible! Yeah and not in line at all with her pro-family, pro-life political stance. Eyes rolling) her children, particularly the youngest who has special needs and they aren’t really sure if he’s her’s or her daughter’s might suffer because of her run for VP and the job if she gets elected. Hmmm very pro-women’s rights there. NOT!

Even scarier they claim is that she could be a heartbeat away from the actual white house and be in charge of the nation! McCain could croak at any moment the shout gleefully! Do I even have to go into how many ways this is just wrong? Is it even remotely progressive or liberal or even decent to be gleeful about someones perceived imminentdeath? Hardly. The thing about how she could be in control well what’s wrong with that? She’s a woman? Is that the problem? Really? From the progressive party?

If it’s experience they have no right to go there. If it’s her family having an un-wed teen mother to be in their ranks then Mr. “raised by a single mother” has absolutely no ground to stand on. Oh, and if it’s because she’s a former beauty queen and pretty how the hell does that reconcile with or reflect on the Democratic party? Please! As if looks are what makes the person. She’s not going for America’s Top Model or anything and she went to college and has done pretty well for herself so the brainless bimbo tactic is not going to fly. Sooo progressive.

I also heard the argument that it wasn’t fair to pick her and she got special treatment by being promoted to this position because she’s not qualified. OMG! I nearly blew a gaskett the first time I read one of these opinions! You mean special treatment like awarding delegates to someone who wasn’t on the ballot? Or maybe like giving delegates earned based on actual votes cast to another candidate? Maybe like having someone add your name to a whole bunch of legislation that you had nothing to do with so you can pad your nearly non-existent resume? That kind of special treatment? Pot? This is Kettle…you know the rest.

And the unqualified thing I can’t believe they would go there with all the questions on so many fronts as to Obama’s qualifications for the job. Do they not see the total idiocy of this approach? They are only shining light on their own candidates flaws with this line of attack. They are shooting themselves in the foot and doing it with fervor that is unbelievable. This guy really is more “evangelical” in some ways than the folks who are actually characterized as evangelicals. I mean to say he seems an awful lot like a Jim Jones style Preacher in a crazy, we’re right and everybody else is wrong revival tent with the cult of followers and their fanatical devotion to him. They will do anything for him including the smearing of people with lies and stereotypes they claim to hate.

There seems to be a consensus among Obama supporters that since Hillary suspended, endorsed and went along with their sham roll call vote and faux unity for her party’s sake that those who don’t jump ship and join the Obamaphenomina are not true democrats and that we aren’t true Hillary supporters. They want to believe this because they want to believe the lie that Clinton supporters are falling in line like good little soldiers. I’m not denying that some are but the majority I talk to are not by any means going to vote for Obama. They are varied in their plans for November 4th. Some will stay home, write in Hillary, vote 3rd party and yes some will vote for McCain/Palin. Hillary can do what she must but we will each do the same.

I recently had a Obama supporter tell me in a forum I have belonged to for years (btw this person had just joined and had 12 posts all that day all that thread yet they called me the troll) that I don’t “get to call myself a Clinton supporter if I don’t support Obama”. I let them know in no uncertain terms that I get to call myself anything I please and they do not get to define me. A friend there male, libertarian and believe it or not very anti-Clinton told them in no uncertain terms what to do with that attitude. He said I could quote him so here it is:

> “She can call herself any-damn-thing she wants to —
> first of all — and second — just because Hillary
> gives some ass-saving speech telling everyone they
> should support Obama and anyone who thinks that is
> prima facia evidence of Hillary’s real position
> probably has their head so far up their ass they
> can’t see daylight.
>
> But, hey, have a nice day & hopefully you’ve got
> other tricks up yer sleeve besides being a shill for
> Democrat unity. “

Far less polite than most of my fellow PUMAS like to put it but the meaning is the same. Hillary is doing what she has to and what she feels is right. Each of us must also make our own choices and we will. Nobody has to right to tell another person how to make that choice. It’s personal and it deserves to be respected. That is one of the core principals the party I have always known holds dear. Or at least they used to.

I guess the one silver lining to all this is it will shine the light bright on the tactics of Camp Obama and the utter hypocrisy and sexism that is more prevalent than any of us would have liked to think existed in this day and age. The light will shine on elections and the need for reform of the system and of the parties. For sure you know this stuff will no longer be dismissed as just a bunch of disgruntled Hillary supporters exaggerating about abusive tactics. Now that they are using this line of attack? Or maybe they think it’s a defense? The republicans will see to it that people know all about it in great detail because that’s what they do. Plus we all know the media LOVES the republicans and they believe everything they say. OK I’m exaggerating there but since it’s no longer perceived to be about Hillary it will get coverage and that’s a good thing.

Unless your a member of Team Obama that is. I will never join that team. I like the ideas and I still look up to the people who have represented our party so well. There are many wonderful, passionate and brilliant democrats still around and alot of them call themselves PUMAS. They are waiting for the current party leadership to finish their self destruction so we can get down to reforming our party and adhereing to the values we once stood for. Those democrats are not going away and because leadership decided to do everything but the right thing they will teach the leadership and the party a lesson. It will hurt but the alternative would be far worse. Those who would sacrifice all that The Party and Democracy stood for only to acheive a means that was not worthy will regret their decision in time. In any case they are not my concern. My party and my country are my concern and I will work to defeat anyone who would hurt either one.

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

I’m so tired of all the sore loser and bitter dead-ender comments out there. They want to spin this party implosion as being all about Hillary Clinton’s supporters being “spiteful”.

I know you’ve seen it. It’s everywhere. According to these commenters we are voting against Obama only to spite him because he “won” and Hill “lost”. I guess they got tired of calling us racists and republicans. Maybe it was getting old and not sticking. Now they’re on a “spoiled brat, spiteful, sore loser, bitter, old hag” stchick.

When will these people ever figure out that name calling, guilt trips, scare tactics, threats and intimidation is NOT the way to win votes or recruit support? Did they ever hear the phrase “You will catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”? Guess not.

Here’s the truth. Are we pissed off that Hillary Clinton the distinguished Senator from New York, former First lady of the USA and the best candidate to come along in years is not our party’s nominee? Damn right we are! Are we voting against and refusing to support Obama soley because of that anger and dissapointment? Hell NO!

There may be a few Clinton supporters who would disagree with me and say it’s their only reason but truthfully there are very few who feel that way. Sure we’re all bummed but I was bummed when Kerry won the nomination in 2004 as I have been bummed many other times but I still voted for him.

Recently I had some coment made asking me whether I would have voted for George Bush out of spite if it had been Hillary who lost the nomination to Kerry. Answer? NO and Hell NO! He wasn’t my choice and I didn’t like it but I voted for him. Why? I trusted him more than I would ever trust Bush. I didn’t like him that much but he was by far the lesser of two evils in that situation. This is NOT the case in this election cycle. Far from it in fact.

People who try to tell me that Obama’s policies are “nearly identical” might as well save their breath because it’s bullshit. His policies, are a parade of ever changing pandering that even some of my far left friends who supported him are having a hard time keeping up with. Whatever they are today you can rest assured they will be different tomorrow or as soon as it becomes politically expedient that he change them. Again.

Pure and simple, straight from this horse’s mouth, so to speak. We will not vote for him because he is not the right person for the job.  He is not even close. No choice for VP, not even Hillary would have ever made up for that. We don’t think he’s up for the job and more important than that we DO NOT TRUST HIM!

He has proven to be naive at best in his reaction to the current Russia/Georgia conflict as well as incompetent on almost every other major issue. Were he to become the POTUS it is my sincere belief that the country would be in complete economic chaos within the first year of his administration.

Then we have his ideas on foriegn policy (again naive and foolish), National Health Insurance (don’t even get me started on this one) and taxes (raising the Capital Gains Tax has been tried before and proved ineffective and unsucessfull).

The we have the issues of his dangerous associations and all the endorsements from people like Louis Farrakan, NOI, Black Panthers, Hamas, Kim Jong Il, Osama bin Laden. He may not have asked for those endorsments but the fact that people like this support and endorse him is very telling indeed.

Let’s see Rezco (set to be sentenced a week before the November election), Ayers (flag burning, fire bombing, self admitted terrorist who wishes they had done more), Auchi, Odinga, ACORN, Rev. Wright (God Damn America Rev. Wright) and the list goes on and on and on. Why is this guy associated with so many radical, terrorist types? Not to mention convicted criminals. How come they all seem to love Obama so much? Why do they flock to him in droves? You think maybe they recognize a kindred spirit?

To the person or persons who keep sending me comments threatening me and telling me to shut the fuck up: Dream on ! I will not shut up! If it was only that easy! In the words of the famous Tweety Bird “You don’t know me vewy well now do you?” Oh, and BTW, I am self employed so there goes that threat too! Tough day for you huh?

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »