Comments Posted By retire05
Displaying 101 To 110 Of 231 Comments
OBAMA VS. McCAIN: THE GLOVES COME OFF
Rick, excuse me if I don't bask in the "from the projects to the Presidency" view of Obama. He basically lead a charmed life with attending the most prestigous prep school in Hawaii (current tuition $14,000/yr). But how did he do that? His supporters tell me he was awarded a scholarship, but in his book he talks about his granny, a VP at a bank, rode the bus to work. Was she the forerunner of the "global warming" crowd? Or did she do it to be able to afford tuition? How about his entrance to Columbia? Affirmative action? Yes, no?
Harvard? Pure nepotism. His father was a Harvard graduate.How many kids come out of the barrio in San Antonio, born of mixed parents, to have such a resume?
Obama was more the norm in Hawaii, not being a Hoale. "Kill Hoale Day" is still a school ritual in Hawaii.
Obama is less a brilliant candidate and more a brilliant P.R. campaign. Not since the nation was sold CocaCola has such a PR campaign been launched. His obvious talent is that he is comfortable standing in front of thousands reading his prepared speeches, written by someone else, from a teleprompter. And having the MSM in the tank for him, not willing to delve into his shady friends, his system of eliminating political opponents by the "total smear" tactic, accepting his weak "this is not the man I knew" excuse for both Wright and Rezko, Newsweek covers with halos around his head, and you have the New Messiah who will lead the nation from it's darkness. The brilliance of Obama is not Obama himself, but his campaign management that has run his campaign the "Chicago" way. Why did the MSM not report on the shanigans that went on during the Texas caucuses where Hillary supporters were literally shut out of those caucuses and not allowed to vote by Obama goons who were blocking the doors so that Hillary supporters could not be inside by the closing hour? My aged mother has always been a Democrat and when she went to the caucus that night, she was asked by an Obama supporter who she was going to vote for. Being the feisty woman she has always been she told him "None of your business". The next thing I know I get a call that she was in the ER after having been shoved to the ground by Obama supporters who were not letting Clinton supporters into the school cafeteria to vote during the caucus. She is in her 80's. But no media coverage of that kind of tactics used on March 4 when Texas had it's primary.
Obama is the Teflon Don of the political world. And now we are stuck with him. And if you listen to his speeches (which never say how he is going to acheive all the wonderful things he proposes) he is pure Saul Alinsky.
So the real question is not how someone who makes George McGovern look like a rabid right winger managed this coup, the real question is what is happening to a nation of independent thinkers that came from pioneers willing to cross the Rockies for their chance at the American dream and when did it make a hard left turn?
Comment Posted By retire05 On 5.06.2008 @ 09:10
#17
May, I could go into bloody detail about how wrong you are on so many issues, but since I had first hand experience with Katrina (going there to volunteer after the storm) I would like to address that:The state of Louisiana, like all other states, has to file their Emergency Preparedness Plan with the feds. And so they did. Not one thing, NOT ONE DAMN THING, was followed in that plan by the Democrats who were running Louisiana at the time.
The SuperDome was never listed on their EPP as a shelter. The governor, Kathleen Blanco, was so rude to the Red Cross when she refused to allow them to take supplies to the SuperDome the RC even posted an apology for her ineptness on their website (the apology was to all the people they could NOT help due to Kathleen Blanco). If Katrina proved anything, it was how people, when given cradle to grave entitlements, lose the will to take care of themselves.
Also, in the EPP every state has, it clearly agrees that the local/state first reponders will be responsible for up to 72 hours. The New Orleans Fire Department did an awsome job. The New Orleans Police Department bailed. They left town. They left their posts and left the city to anarchy.So let me see if I understand you; you think that even if a municipality agrees that it's own first responders will be responsible for up to 72 hours, knowing that they have agreed to that, they should not be held to that agreement? I see. Then explain to me why Rita did not have the same affect on Texas or Katrina did not have the same affect in lower Mississippi? But I guess if you house catches on fire, you will sit on your roof waiting for the feds to come and get you. Good luck with that policy.
When Katrina was imminent, Texas Governor Rick Perry stationed Texas National Guard at the state line with Louisiana. He notified Kathleen Blanco that the troops were there and were ready to enter Louisiana to help immediately upon landfall. SHE REFUSED THEM and did not take help from the Texas Guard for two days.
Louisiana was not a failure of the Bush administration as it was of the pathetic leadership of Lousiana and the citizens of Louisiana themselves for thinking that the government is responsible for their safety. Someone needs to explain to them, and you, what first responder means and FEMA is, and never was, designed to be first responders.
It is just such people as yourself that makes me wonder where this nation will be in 50 years.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 28.05.2008 @ 23:58
DrKrbyLov, while I agree with your argument that conservatism is not related to neo-conservatism, I would also point out that only those who subscribe to doom and gloom (Democrats?) believe that our economy is on the verge of collapse. We, as a nation, have seen worse economies and have survived only to rally back stronger than ever.
The Republicans lost control in 2006 for one reason; they stopped acting like conservatives and moved farther to the left. It is this very reason that we will continue to lose seats in the House and Senate. Until we convince those who are acting more like Democrats than Republicans that they are going to continue to join the unemployment lines, we will not win elections.
But to say conservatism, as a political belief, is dead is dead wrong.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 27.05.2008 @ 16:18
still liberal, your post, #4, was not up when I hit "submit comment" for my post #5. But don't let that stop you from getting your Hanes in a wad. Funny how us conservatives are never supposed to be insulted by the "liberals" but you "liberals" seem to take offense if a conservative mentions the sun coming up.
Health insurance: perhaps you would like to explain how the federal government forced companies to provide health insurance for their employees other than Workman's Compensation. Many employee insurance plans were designed in two ways: first through union negotiations and secondly, by benefit packages companies offered to be able to draw quality employees. Now, let me tell you what is going to happen to those company provide health care plans when the government gets involved. POOF. ATT is one example. The CWA's contracts with ATT ends in August (the old BellSouth contract and SBC's ends before that.) Health care benefits are a major concern for union negotiators as they feel that ATT is going to want to withdraw many of the previously negotiated plans due to the government providing insurance to all Americans, no matter their income. Getting the government involved in benefits that have been negotiated, over the years, by unions, will only benefit the corporation, not the employee. And once ATT can use the excuse that employees now have another option to gaining health care and they no longer need to provide "cheap" health care, who benefits? Not the employee I can assure you. The CWA is in the pocket of the Democrats and are backing a universal health care plan and union member's, whose contracts will soon be expiring, are say "WTF? They will just quit giving us our health insurance as a benefit."
Perhaps that is why CWA membership is dropping in right to work states.Global warming: although you may be buying into the world's greatest hoax, I don't. I think that the science behind "global warming", now called "climate change" for political expendiency, is NOT settled science. As a matter of fact, some climatologist now think we might be going into a cooling trend (mini-ice age) which would give us temperatures and weather much like when Washington crossed the Delaware (near the end of the last mini-ice age). But the global warming alarmist have basically shouted down any dissent. That is what they do.
Perhaps you should research Maurice Strong and his part in this "humans are ruining the world" senario.Government spending responsibility: some things are just too obvious to mention. Millions for shrimp rehabilitation? Woodstock Museum? Bridge to Nowhere? Do you support the Enumerated Powers Act? Do you believe that any money spent by Congress should be based in the limited powers granted to the federal government?
Because Rick and Packer warned that there would be dissent to their opinions, doen't make them right. I can say the same thing. It is called CYA. Making sure that you have already said that anyone disagreeing with you is wrong therefore you, once again, shout down the opposition. Say they are wrong before they say anything and your opinion is then not up for dissent.
Now to correct you on one small poing: conservative values have not changed. What has changed is those who think they are in a position to speak for conservatives. It is like saying "yeah, that is what the Bible says, but that is not how I intrepret it."
Comment Posted By retire05 On 27.05.2008 @ 11:12
Amazing. A person who calls themselves "still liberal" agrees whole heartedly with this. And even mentions the belief that abortion and "gay" marriage is somehow "draconian". Then, in his effort to rid the nation of the members of such a "draconian" party, he wants to eliminate talk radio not having been satisfied with having the media in the pocket of the liberals for forty years. I am sure "still liberal" is an ardent fan of the Fairness Doctrine, at which point this very blog will have to provide an alternate view, no matter the side it takes.
Wow! Think of it. Keith Oberman will have to provide his audience with giving a conservative equal time.Are liberals immoral? No, they are amoral. Are liberals unpatriotic? No, they are just selective to what cause they give their patriotism; Code Pinkos standing outside the doors of Walter Reed Hospital, patriotic; honoring our military, not patriotic. Anti-American? No, they just have a socialistic view of what America, their America, should look like.
But don't worry, still liberal, after your beloved Democrats get done with this nation, considering such stellar actions of the Democraticly held Congress like suing OPEC, they won't be able to get elected dog cather.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 26.05.2008 @ 23:25
One other thing, Rick; the cheap shot taken at Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity was beneath you. Are they to be chasitized because they earn money from what they do? Do you yourself not have a radio show that you are paid to do (I don't know because I have never heard it) or do you not take advertising dollars from ATT or have a "PayPal - Donate" link on your site to support your tip jar?
To say that Coulter and Hannity are not conservatism is like saying that Simon Peter, who was prone to violence, was not Christianity.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 26.05.2008 @ 19:54
Rick, you are wrong on so many points that I don't know where to start. Conservatism, as a base for which average Americans live their lives and subscribe to their beliefs on how their government should operate, is alive and well. If you wanted to be correct you would have said that conservatism among the GOP body politic, is dead. Not with American citizens.
But then you go on to point out that as conservatives, we must address certain issues, such as health insurance, wage inequality, inequitable trade agreements and yes, climate change (the new catch phrase for global warming). In other words, as the Democrats move farther left, we must move with them?
Wage inequality has taken a hit as we see more and more illegals come into our nation (they are just here to work as proven by the recent death of a Houston cop) and we have seen, especially in my state, how a man who was once a carpenter or sheet rocker could make a living that he could support his family on is now out of work due to the influx of illegals who are willing to work for $12.00 an hour instead of the normal $20 the now unemployed carpenter once made. Wage inequality is market driven. The more people you have who are seeking any one particular job, the lower the wages go. When there is an influx of labor, wages plummet. When the reverse is true, wages increase as employers bid for laborers. I don't believe that manipulating the wage market is the position of the federal government or listed in the Constitution under the enumerated powers given to the federal government.
Health insurance: the study done that shows there were 40 million uninsured also included those who were without insurance for at least ONE day, illegal immigrants who worked under the table (and paid no taxes, by the way), those who were poor but perferred to spend 80 bucks a month on cable instead of the $50 (in my state, at least) that it costs to sign up all your kids under the CHIPS program. But that is not my arguement with universal health care. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you are entitled to health insurace and if I remember correctly, the Constitution is very specific as to the "persuit" of happiness, not the guarantee of happiness. It is not my, as a conservative, responsibility to give everyone health care insurance through my force contributions called "taxes" when the beneficiary of that program holds no responsibility to lead a healthy life style. If you are poor, but chose to smoke, it is not my responsibility to provide you with health care when your health goes to hell because of smoking.
Inequitable trade agreements: Who benefits the most from cheap goods from China? Certainly not the rich who tend to buy American and spend their money on more expensive items. It is the low wage earner that has made Wal-Mart the biggest retailer in the nation, not Michael Dell or Bill Gates. Low wage earners benefit from low cost goods from off shore companies by allowing them greater purchasing power and to have things they could not normally afford. Just one factor to take into consideration when saying that perhaps we should impliment a "dollar out, dollar in" policy.
Climate change: I am of the opinion that one day we will see the whole global warming issue as one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on mankind designed for one purpose, the reduction of the power and influence of the United States. But as is standard with the left, the best offense to their issues is to shout down the opposition. Demand the argument be "settled" while global warming is far from settled and more and more scientists are beginning to think that we are, in fact, on the age edge of another mini-ice age.
Yes, voters are concerned with jobs leaving for foreign nations. They are concerned with rising gasoline prices which inturn, along with ethanol subsidies, have driven up the cost of food. But it is not that "conservatism" itself does not have an answer for these problems, it is that there is no conservative leadership. The values are still alive and well. The leadership is non-existant.
I don't think Americans want social services to suffer. But it is not really the federal government that provides fire and police departments. It is state and local governments that do that. I do think Americans are tired of bridges to nowhere and pork projects that would have provide a million dollars to the Woodstock Museum. It is not government that I object to, it is unnecessary government that I, and most conservatives I know, object to. It is not paying taxes I object to, it is making me responsible for paying taxes that gives someone else my money but none of the responsibly for how they spend my money. I don't mind using light bulbs I cannot touch with my bare fingers. I object to being told I have to use those light bulbs.
Other than what is specified in the Constitution, the federal government should butt out.We lost big in 2006 and we will lose big in 2008 because Republicans no longer act like conservatives who believe that the fat can be trimed from the meat without losing it's flavor. The recent farm bill was a clear example of how the right had a prime opportunity to take a stand, but the lure of taking home the bacon was just too great. If Republicans are going to act like Democrats, why not just vote for the real thing?
I see the problem not as the death of conservatism, but the lack of conservative leadership who are willing to take the heat when the left starts shouting them down and shout right back at them. Wrapping yourself in an alligator skin will not stop the alligator from trying to bite you.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 26.05.2008 @ 19:48
McCAIN'S DISAVOWAL OF HAGEE A GOOD SIGN
So while John McCain distances himself from Hagee, Juan Hernandez remains on McCain's staff. McCain, in his distancing from Hagee, and his comments to Obama on the Veteran's Bill, his renewed interest in "comprehensive immigration reform" (read amnesty) goes unnoticed.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 23.05.2008 @ 16:25
THE 'MAN ON A WHITE HORSE' SYNDROME
Drongo, do you drink your Koolaid in a Big Gulp container?
I hate to tell you this, but stock holders vote on their representatives, just like you do. Those representatives, who if they want to stay in office, vote on the salaries and compensation packages of the CEO's, UNLIKE UNIONS, where members do not vote on the salary and compensation packages of the Union presidents and officers. So Obama thinks he has the right to change that system? Why stop there? Why not determine what doctors can make or plumbers (have you hired a plumber lately)? How about movie stars? Where is Obama's plan for them? It has been reported that Tom Hanks will earn as much as $42 MILLION for his next movie, the sequel to The Divinci Code. That is ONE movie. How does Obama justify that? Or is it because Hollywood basically supports the left side of the aisle, they are untouchable? Does Hanks salary not drive up the cost of a movie ticket to low income families? How about sports stars? Seen any baseball player who is really worth what they earn?
And asking me where the Republican answer to the border chaos is is not an answer, it is a dodge. Something that the left is great at. All you told me with that response is that you have no answer to Obama's solution on the border so you say "you first, Republicans" and think that is an answer. Typical of the left wing.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 21.05.2008 @ 08:40
Surabaya Stew,
If you don't understand the difference between policy and rhetoric, then perhaps you should do more than watch the History Channel. Perhaps a course in sociology would serve you better.Drong,
end the war on terror? Yeah, if Obama is elected, then all the jolly jihadists who would not give a moment's thought to sliting your throat or blowing up the building you work in if they got the chance, are all going to lay down their arms, change their attitudes about killing infidels (I assume you are also an infidel in their eyes), return to their home and adopt a new attitude. Why, because they know that he will talk them to death.
We had fools like you in 1938. Hitler was not a problem. Just sent someone to talk to him and he would give up trying to invade all of Europe.
I have looked at Obama's policies and I consider them dangerous. And while you are at it, perhaps you can tell me what his policy is on border control on our own borders? Or what he intends to do to prevent the invasion of illegal immigrants, some Muslim, into our nation? Maybe he can start collecting all those Muslim prayer rugs our Border Patrol are finding in the Arizona desert? Then he can give them to his friend, Rashid Khalidi. You do know who Rashid Khalidi is, don't you?
And then, while you are searching the internet for Rashid Khalidi, you can google what Obama said about the salaries of CEOs and if you think that even arrogance such as Obama's would never allow his to say what you earn, you are a bigger fool than you present yourself to be.
Comment Posted By retire05 On 20.05.2008 @ 21:01
