I thought it would be fun and also a good exercise for those of us who are going to listen to Mr. Obama's State of The Union Address on January 27th to print off this list and keep count of how many times he says the following phrases:
In an artical written in The Wall Street Journal, a poll showed 49% of union members voted for Scott Brown while 46% went for Martha Coakley.
You might think that’s pretty close but this is Massachusetts, bluest of the blue states, and very unionized. The AFL-CIO conducted the poll to find out what went wrong and why union members jumped ship and voted for a Republican.
The article states that union members did not see Coakley as being on “their side.” Does anyone reading this blog right now believe that? If so, please comment because I’d love to hear the logic behind this lunacy, because if you really believe that, you are not in the realm of reality.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE CANDIDATE... IT'S ABOUT CONTROL. UNION CONROL AND THE ABILITY TO DELIVER A VOTING BLOCK WITH SOLID RESULTS FOR LIBERALS.
Working men and women, middle class America, has been abandoned by all three houses in Washington when just 12 short months ago, they were riding a euphoric rocket to the stars believing they were finally going to be saved by the great messiah.
At least now the rest of us know these blind followers know the meaning of false prophet.
The switching of their votes had nothing to do with B.O. wanting to tax their Cadillac health plans by 40%? It had nothing to do with that… nothing at all.
Nice spin guys.
Just the fact that The AFL-CIO had to take this poll and then get together to talk about how they had lost control of their membership says it all. They expect their members to fall in line and vote Democrat no matter what the individual members think. Suddenly Indians were off the reservation. There was independent thought going on here.
“We can’t have members thinking before going to the polls. God forbid the rank and file break out of their horse collars. Baaad sheep…baaaaaaad sheep!!”
Labor unions don’t care about the members, they want your money, period...end of story. If you are a union member, this really should not surprise you. Do you think for one minute labor unions would ask you if they should be giving money to the Republican Party because you feel they represent you better than Democrat candidates? You lemmings need to wake up. Your union is walking in lock step with the crazies in that colossus called the capital building and they don’t care what you think or feel or lose.
You are stuck on stupid. Stuck in the middle… With Unions.
I sat at my desk stunned tonight. With the minutes passing by and new returns coming in five minute intervals, I sat shaking my head and pondering the meaning beyond the obvious. The foundation the democrats had forged in Massachusetts was built on shifting sand.
A protestant in a Catholic state, not worthy of being called conservative yet attractive enough to deal a knockout blow to the Obama agenda, has now shown the puppet press “The Tea Baggers” are real, they are winners, and they are not going away.
There is an arctic gale force wind blowing into Washington this week. It is fierce, it is stinging and it’s coming in from of all places, Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. Representatives are trickling back into DC this week from the Christmas break and if they are democrats they are shell shocked and road weary. Their stories are all too analogous and akin to one another: They held town hall meetings and listening sessions that were dominated by people who were telling them to vote no on Obamacare.
Like arrows from a crossbow, conservative talking points were launched at lawmakers across the country saying, “We are serious and we are watching you.”
This is why the special election in Massachusetts next week is so paramount: If Tea Party Republican Scott Brown wins in historically liberal Massachusetts, these democrat lawmakers psyche will be in the midst of a brain freeze: If Democrats can’t hold Teds old seat, they are all in danger of losing their jobs.
I have stated here a few times now that we are in the midst of a revolution the likes of which the people of our country have never seen. Not in theirs or my lifetime has there been such a groundswell from bottom to top towards the right of the political spectrum. To be part of this is to be part of history and knowing that this will deal liberals a blow so ruinous a generation may well be lost to the left because of the body of evidence they themselves have constructed.
The dig is this: Pelosi has the preverbal gun to their heads saying “Don’t you flip-flop on healthcare” and all the while these lawmakers know that if they do change their vote, it may save their job. How arrogant would they look going to these listening sessions and not listening to the people who they represent? Harry and Nancy are not only way off base in ramming through this socialist agenda, but they are in dire need of replacement. They are as responsible as Obama is for turning the country against the liberals and the Democratic Party.
Now I’ll grant you, there are many perspectives out there, some say the bill costs too much, some are mad because it contains no public option, some say it does not go far enough, others say it’s just bad law. Most are saying no to the bill because healthcare needs to be fixed but not by Washington.
The funny thing is these liberals could save themselves if they just changed their vote saying “I can’t vote for this because it is not what we promised the American people when we were elected and I have to vote against it” and they’d be saved: Simple as that!! But then there stands Nancy and Harry with their guns drawn telling them they will lose support of the party and this and that and the other thing… if they switch.
Oh how I love to see the left eating them selves.
The giddy feeling I get seeing my Senator Russ Feingold at a listening session with his fingers in his ears singing “la la la la la”… It’s just red meat for the red hearted. Nothing makes me happier. Russ has been so haughty and condescending in his listening sessions you know he won’t flip flop. And if he did, he’d assure himself a place on The Hill for a very long time.
As you can see, he's not in a listening mode.
So having explained it in a simple way, will the real Diogenes please stand up?
Yes or No, will you make the bet per the previous post? YES...or... NO?
"We can think of several reasons for Harry Reid to resign as Senate Majority Leader, though the flap over his obtuse racial comments isn't one of them. The uproar is nonetheless instructive about the perils of identity politics. Mr. Reid is apologizing to all and sundry for saying in private in 2008 that Barack Obama should run for President because he was 'light-skinned' and spoke with 'no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.' Republicans are calling for Mr. Reid to resign, on grounds of the Trent Lott precedent. When the Republican leader in 2002 joked at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond that America might have been better off had the one-time Dixiecrat won his 1948 Presidential campaign, Democrats demanded Mr. Lott's resignation. An Illinois state senator with a big political future went so far as to suggest at the time that Republicans needed to 'drive out' Mr. Lott in order to 'stand for something.' Mr. Lott resigned, notwithstanding his profuse apologies. In contrast, Mr. Obama and various black Democrats have rushed to Mr. Reid's defense. ... In any event, this is hardly Mr. Reid's worst rhetorical offense. That prize goes to his all too public comments in April 2007 that 'the war is lost' in Iraq, even as the surge was finally making victory possible. That was a betrayal of American soldiers risking their lives in Iraq, and to the extent it emboldened the enemy, it may have cost American lives. If Mr. Reid has apologized for that defeatism, we don't recall it. That's reason enough to resign."
Wow... And he's not just some Tom, Dick or... oh...wait a minute...
In an op-ed piece written by Michael Kinsley called Whats Our Line? and to Bill Minnich's reprint of Lee Papa's artical from his "The Rude Pundit" blog, I am compelled to to posit the following. Please take the time to read both befoe reading my response as it necessary for you to know what was said before you read my post.
Michael Kinsley has masterfully written a response to those opposed to civilian trials of terrorists captured abroad. Mr. Kinsley has basically said he would rather error on the side of caution, treating these terrorists as if they were home grown terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh or the Columbine Killers. It’s a brave attempt at logic from a liberal.
His point is ‘You have to draw the line somewhere, so therefore it’s ok to draw it here, at the boarders of the United States.
Thats ridicules! You could use that argument to draw the line anywhere you darn well please!!
He invokes murderers and child molesters. Murderers and child molesters are inherently less dangerous than terrorists because terrorists are part of an on going plot, whereas the murderer and child molester acts on his or her own. The point of terror is that there is little that can be done after the fact.
It's a war guys, not a crime spree.
Very catchy
Bill Minnich's and Kinsley’s entire argument here is about how to best punish terrorists. Those of us who see clearly the need to stop terror are trying to prevent future terror: That’s the fundamental difference. By allowing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was cooperating while being waterboarded, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab with his "FRUIT OF THE BOOM" underwear, to be tried in civilian courts means they get to lawyer up and get the same rights as Americans. This prevents us from garnering information to prevent future attacks!
To use the logic (or illogic) of Kinsley, if World War Two had been fought on American soil, lets say…Texas… is he arguing that every Nazi captured there would have to be given a civilian trial? You’ve got to differentiate between war and crime!!
This administration does not believe we are at war. If we found a known terrorist on the streets of Bagdad we have the right to blow him to 70 virgins but if we catch him trying to blow up a jet in America we have to give him a lawyer… That’s ridicules!!
Just because you say you have to draw a line somewhere does not mean Americans have to draw it here. That's Elitist!!
As for erring on the side of American justice, I don’t know about Kinsley or Bill Minnich or Lee Papa, but I will stand on the side of American security!!! Liberals like these guys love to feel morally superior, “Oh I feel so much better to extend rights to this guy who tried to take 280 lives on this plane.” And I can here Bill Minnich saying “You just want to waterboard them and get information out of them!”
Damn RIGHT!!
I’m smarter then you limp wristed dopes. I’ll waterboard them all the live long day if it means I save one American. I’ll waterboard them and find out whats going on in Yemen and I’ll go over there and kill whoever they say is plotting against America. You liberals might say you’re better than me and that I'm sick and wrong and inhuman. Well I just saved American lives you panty-wasted milk-toast fool.
And yes, I’d do it even if it means saving you Cynical Bill, or saving you Diorreah, or you Michael Kinsley.
Though my predictions were not spot-on they were darn close. The Packers are in the playoffs.
I gave them a 12-4 record. They ended 11-5 and were one play away (Steelers) from being 12-4.
They have won 7 of their last 8 and are a very tough defensive team. They are also hard to stop offensively. They have one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL and Aaron Rogers is only the second Packer to finish the season with a QB rating over 100. Bart Star was the first.
I'm very happy with most facets of the team. The coach changed a 6-10 team into a very tough hard nosed football team. We need offensive line help next season and need to get it through free agency. Drafting will not be much help in that the help we need is immediate. Special teams are a deep concern as well. Coverage teams are average and penalty prone. Well…The whole team is penalty prone but 50% of that is aggressive play penalties. That’s the price we pay for being the #1 defense.
I’m looking forward to this post season. We have much to prove and much to learn.
How far will they go? Well, I'll take this one game at a time since I have no idea who they play after Arizona. We will beat Arizona but not like we did this last week. It will be closer. Packers 31 Cardinals 24
