Comments Posted By Mike Giles
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 18 Comments


As I understand the Bank Bailout,the majority of banks were in no trouble and were required to take the money so as to not single out the Bank(s)that were weak. Further, the weakest big bank was Citi Group - formerly run by Democrat insider Robert Rubin. The banks have paid back the money - with the exception of Citi Group. You know, if I were a suspicious soul, I'd believe this entire bank bailout dog and pony show, was a bailout of the Dems old friend at Citi, disguised as a general bailout. But perhaps I just have a suspicious mind.

Question? Are the Banks risking their money in Hedge funds, the depositors money, or a combination of both?

Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 23.01.2010 @ 11:40


Surabaya #12

Blaming the GOP, because the Dems - who hold all the cards - decided to push their plans through with no input from the GOP, because they didn't need the GOP.


Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 20.01.2010 @ 08:45


"...and the US perpetuated the cruelest sort of slavery."
As compared to who? The Arabs? The Romans? The Greeks? The Brazilians?
Where did you get the idea that American slavery was particularly cruel - your Marxist school teachers? Reality check. Was the voyage across the Middle Passage worse the slave caravans across the Sahara? The only thing that makes America look bad is in contrast to standards that America set. It took awhile for us to live up to our own high ideals, not that we didn't live up to some international standard. And then there is the "silver lining", this country may piss me off mightily some times; but as a black man, I'm glad I'm on this side of the ocean!

As for the Native Americans, what would one assume would be the outcome between a Stone Age culture and an industrialized one? Should we have left this country a howling wilderness to placate a bunch of savages. When has that worked? Angle-Saxons feel bad about pushing out the Native Americans, should they return to the forests of Germany where they originated? Groups of Native Americans had pushed out other groups of Native Americans.

As for our "second class" treatment of women, take a gander at how they are still being treated in most of the rest of the world. Burka clad Arab women, for example.

Zinn "history" is the usual leftist dreck, in which the US is tried and found guilty of lack of perfection. Yes, we have faults - but at least we try to do something about them. And we don't need to be constantly reminded of those faults as opposed to being praised for the ones we've tried to correct.

Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 14.12.2009 @ 10:26


Moderation, in fact, IS conservative; conservative thought is suspicious of extreme manifestos, (like Ayn Rand) and downright scornful of “free lunch” gimmicks like supply side economics.

I know this sounds odd, but since 1980, the conservative movement has drifted further and further away from its common-sense roots to become a mockery of itself.

Ah. So after a number of posts accusing some Conservatives of trying to purge the party of "moderates?RINOs/DIABLOs", mainly because they're "purists". We arrive at the conclusion that the "purists aren't "really" conservative. Which is - oddly enough - the exact same conclusion the "purists" arrived at about the "moderates/RINOs/DIABLOs". IOW, chasing our collective (pardon the word) tails.

Since neither side has a hope of "purging" the other side, I would hold that this has simply been an ongoing argument about what the party should, and should not, stand for. Also about what tactics should, and should not be used.

Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 3.11.2009 @ 12:03

You don’t know what she would have done. And, if you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would have discovered that procedural votes, which usually fall along party lines, are just as important if not moreso than votes on bills. That reasoning seems to escape those who are ignorant of how our government actually works and why it is important that parties allow for a fairly broad spectrum of beliefs in order to craft a majority. Does that include members who support the opposing party? Who violate the most basic things the party stands for? Who can't be trusted to support the party on even the procedural votes? It should be obvious to all but the most obvious that supporting Hoffman over Scozzafava was the correct move. Scozzafava was a candidate simply because a friend of her's was a GOP county Chairman. It was simply careerism on her part. A chance to move to DC and get the big paycheck. She stood for nothing, except herself.
Now instead of saying: Whew! I was wrong, dodged a bullet on that one!, all you do is repeat the Media meme that the GOP needs to turn into "Dem Lite", invite in everyone - even people who will actively work against and GOP program - and stand for nothing more then winning the next election. And again you seem to believe that Scozzafava was beaten only because of the "evil Soc-Cons" as opposed to the fact that she was on the wrong side of EVERY GOP issue. There has to be some standard. And the idea that Conservatives want to "purge" the party has more to do with the media then reality. In my opinion what they want, is to rid the party of "Republicans" who vote with the Democrats on every issue, until six months before Election Day. The career politicians who are only on the Republican line because the Democratic line was filled up. Who will turn on the party (Scuzzy, Spector, Jeffreys, Gingrich). Exactly how much should be accepted in the name of solidarity. And especially on fiscal issues. It's not always the social issues. It's Snowe voting for the Health Care monstrosity, not Guiliani being pro-Gay Marriage. And, IIRC, Guiliani spoke at the Convention, no Casey style censorship on the Republican side.

Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 3.11.2009 @ 11:27

"But above all of that, I believe in victory. And if that is not paramount in your mind, then you might as well switch parties and vote for the Democrat."

If you don't believe in, or stand for, something, why bother voting at all. What is it about people actually standing for a set of principles, that you seem to be having such a hard time grasping? Is it all just a horse race to you? Or is it that with the endorsement of Owens, by Scozzafava; she was shown to be just the kind of turncoat RINO all the conservatives were leery of? Not to mention showing Gingrich - and you - to be wrong. Suppose the entire party had united behind Scozzafava, and she had been elected; do you think she wouldn't have vote with the Dems on each and every opportunity?

You don't know what she would have done. And, if you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would have discovered that procedural votes, which usually fall along party lines, are just as important if not moreso than votes on bills. That reasoning seems to escape those who are ignorant of how our government actually works and why it is important that parties allow for a fairly broad spectrum of beliefs in order to craft a majority.

If the choice is between electing someone who agrees with conservatives on 90% of the issues and someone who agrees with them on 10% of the issues, then yes, give me the moderate.

Your "principles" are so narrowly conceived - you confuse positions on issues with what philosophy animates someone's thinking - that the chances of ever achieving any kind of a majority are as close to absolute zero that you can get. The urge to purge will only guarantee Obama and the Democrats will continue to subvert First Principles while turning the country into a Euro-paradise.

Perhaps you can define for me what a "RINO" is? My guess is that you will describe a Democrat rather than the dwindling number of Republicans who agree with you on a the vast majority of issues, but vary on a few others.


Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 2.11.2009 @ 12:20


>"A small contingent of reporters and photographers was quietly called to follow him to Dover,.."<

That was from the NY Times article on the Dover visit. He had to bring the media? It screams of Photo Op.

Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 31.10.2009 @ 16:53


Damn. I forgot to add that the actions of the friend seemed to contravene the wishes of the voters in that county, who had originally selected a more conservative candidate.

Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 29.10.2009 @ 12:43

I read an article recently - I think it was on the - that stated that Scozzfava's election was due to the actions of her friend from the state assembly, another liberal republican, who happened to be a county chairman. More cronyism, the ideology.

Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 29.10.2009 @ 12:06



Don't you understand. There is one law for the "common herd" and another for the "elites".

Sort of like how climate change advocates travel around in private jets, lecturing the rest of us on shrinking our "carbon footprints".

Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 29.09.2009 @ 11:38

Powered by WordPress


Next page »

Pages (2) : [1] 2

«« Back To Stats Page