Is there really bias in the polls, as team Romney is claiming? Only if FOX News has become a bastion of Liberals.
Here's the real deal:
Gallup has Obama up by 6 points. Bloomburg has Obama up by 6, and they cannot be considered Liberal by any stretch of the imagination. And FOX News has Obama up by 5 points. FOX News cannot be considered Liberal by any stretch of a drug-induced hallucination. Yet Team Romney continues to cry about Liberal bias in polls. They do point to Rasmussen, which has the race tied nationally, but even the House of Ras has Obama ahead in almost all of the swing states, some by comfortable margins. OK, the House of Ras is Liberal too.
How does team Romney get around that? It relies upon a blog that is fudging the data, and claims that Romney is going to win in a landslide. But why? Is Romney desperate? Is he whining? The answer is more straightforward than you might think. It is a fact that, if one side takes a large enough lead, turnout tends to be depressed for the other side on election day. This is something that the Republican Party cannot afford, as this would affect all the close downballot races in the Senate and the House.
So, with all this in mind, here is my own analysis:
1) I think Romney knows the truth regarding his chances at this time.
2) I also believe that team Romney's talk about poll bias, along with the fake polling site, is another tool in the political toolbox, and is being used to shore up support in downballot races.
3) Finally, this election is not over, and if Obama slips up, Romney can come back. But that might be difficult if the party faithful see him so far back that some of them still don't get out and vote, thinking it's a losing cause.
4) And even if Romney loses, there are still downballot races where the GOP needs their base to get out and vote. The Senate, and possibly the House too, are at stake. Although I believe that a Democratic takeover of the House is improbable, Republican chances of a Senate takeover are higher than that.
So, in the end, Romney is acting like he has acted in the past - As a cunning businessman, who is thinking along the same kinds of logical lines that made him successful in business, and not giving up. Romney is playing a bad hand, which he dealt himself, but is playing that hand like a pro. In spite of what I think about Romney, I do like the fact that he does not give up, and keeps on fighting. That, in itself, is not a bad qualification to be president. I still think he is going to lose, but when he goes down to defeat, if the GOP still holds the House, and especially if they manage to take the Senate, Romney will have taken one for the team, and will have taken it well.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Why is George Bush such a dumbass?
Good question. I decided to put this to a scientific test, using the quantum theory as a guide. I did this by creating the following apparatus: I hooked up a device that fired brain cells from a rhesus monkey into an apparatus that split into a right leg and a left leg. I first fired 1,000 brain cells into the apparatus, and it showed that 50% of them ended up in the right side of the apparatus and 50% ended up in the left side. I next tried this with 100 brain cells with the same result. I then did it with 10 brain cells, and once again got the same result. Finally, I did it with one brain cell, and I'll be damned if I didn't get the same result. But how could I see brain cells in both sides of the apparatus if I had fired only one brain cell into it? Turns out that brain cells are so small that the very act of measurement alters the results. If, instead of measuring both sides at once, I measured only the left side or the right side of the apparatus, I would only see a brain cell 50% of the time. So, in measuring both sides at once, I was actually looking at a probability distribution of where, either right or left, that the brain cell would end up. OK, so I had a solid look at quantum weirdness using brain cells from a monkey, but did it apply to humans too? Good question, so I took a brain cell from George Bush, and tried the experiment again. To my surprise, this brain cell did not register in either the left or right leg of the apparatus, neither could I produce a probability wave for that particular brain cell. That's when I realized that the brain cell from Bush was not a real brain cell at all, but a figment of Bush's imagination, so I fed it to Schoedinger's cat. Unfortunately for Bush, that was the only brain cell he had. He was screwed, but his IQ increased by 10 to the minus 4th power points. The cat, however, became catatonic.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
10 Things More Popular Than Congress
1. President Obama (46%)
2. The Internal Revenue Service (40%)
3. The airline industry (29%)
4. Lawyers (29%)
5. Richard Nixon at his lowest (24%)
6. The banking industry (23%)
7. The oil and gas industry (20%)
8. BP during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill (16%)
9. Paris Hilton (15%)
10. America becoming a Communist nation (11%)
11. CONGRESS (10%)
Today's question - Why is the bubonic plague more popular than Congress? I am looking forward to Democratic and Republican ideologues to start pointing their fingers at each other instead of addressing this issue, and I bet this is one reason why the rating of Congress is lower than that of:
1. Burnt toast
2. Venereal disease
3. Dingleberries
4. Dirty diapers (although Senator Vitter might have a different opinion here)
5. Pedophile priests
6. Adolf Hitler
7. Vladimir Lennin (To balance the ticket - LOL)
8. Cockroaches
9. Rapists
10. Slime molds
11. CONGRESS
2. The Internal Revenue Service (40%)
3. The airline industry (29%)
4. Lawyers (29%)
5. Richard Nixon at his lowest (24%)
6. The banking industry (23%)
7. The oil and gas industry (20%)
8. BP during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill (16%)
9. Paris Hilton (15%)
10. America becoming a Communist nation (11%)
11. CONGRESS (10%)
Today's question - Why is the bubonic plague more popular than Congress? I am looking forward to Democratic and Republican ideologues to start pointing their fingers at each other instead of addressing this issue, and I bet this is one reason why the rating of Congress is lower than that of:
1. Burnt toast
2. Venereal disease
3. Dingleberries
4. Dirty diapers (although Senator Vitter might have a different opinion here)
5. Pedophile priests
6. Adolf Hitler
7. Vladimir Lennin (To balance the ticket - LOL)
8. Cockroaches
9. Rapists
10. Slime molds
11. CONGRESS
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Whose Fault?
Am home from my gig tonight, and am ready for another one of my patented rants.
Obama's fault. Bush's fault. Obama's fault. Bush's fault..... Hold it!! Enough of this shit already!!
Actually, Obama DID inherit a hell of a problem, and it's not a problem we can easily pull out of. When the stock market crashed in 1929, it did not reach that level again until 1953. However, I believe that Obama is doing a few things right, and is also doing a number of things wrong. I am not going to listen to talking heads from either the right or the left, but will do my best to think independently. Would Romney be a better president than Obama. I honestly do not know, but I do know something else. If Romney takes office in 2013, things are still not going to right themselves. It will take pretty close to a generation for that to happen, no matter who is in office. Americans right now have way to short an attention span, and want it now. Problem is that it isn't going to happen now, nor will it happen any time in the near future. It is going to take many years.
In addition, this is not Bush's recession alone. It was under Bill Clinton that laws were changed that allowed this mess to happen in the first place, and it was especially the gutting of the Glass-Steagal Act that armed the time bomb that eventually went off. Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame for this mess, but you wouldn't know it by looking at some of the responses you see on "Talking Head Assholes TV". And the responses vary, depending whether the asshole doing the talking supports the Republican party or the Democratic party. Yes, I AM making an accusation here. I am accusing Democrats and Republicans both of putting party ahead of country. There is a word for that, and it's not "Patriotism". "Douchebaggery" does come to mind. So, to the Network Douche Bags, I have a short message for you:
Dear Douche Bag, Go fuck yourself!!
If you want the truth, you can start by turning off your TV set, then taking a sledge hammer to it. After that, it is only necessary that you open your eyes and look.
/rant (Thanx for reading)
Obama's fault. Bush's fault. Obama's fault. Bush's fault..... Hold it!! Enough of this shit already!!
Actually, Obama DID inherit a hell of a problem, and it's not a problem we can easily pull out of. When the stock market crashed in 1929, it did not reach that level again until 1953. However, I believe that Obama is doing a few things right, and is also doing a number of things wrong. I am not going to listen to talking heads from either the right or the left, but will do my best to think independently. Would Romney be a better president than Obama. I honestly do not know, but I do know something else. If Romney takes office in 2013, things are still not going to right themselves. It will take pretty close to a generation for that to happen, no matter who is in office. Americans right now have way to short an attention span, and want it now. Problem is that it isn't going to happen now, nor will it happen any time in the near future. It is going to take many years.
In addition, this is not Bush's recession alone. It was under Bill Clinton that laws were changed that allowed this mess to happen in the first place, and it was especially the gutting of the Glass-Steagal Act that armed the time bomb that eventually went off. Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame for this mess, but you wouldn't know it by looking at some of the responses you see on "Talking Head Assholes TV". And the responses vary, depending whether the asshole doing the talking supports the Republican party or the Democratic party. Yes, I AM making an accusation here. I am accusing Democrats and Republicans both of putting party ahead of country. There is a word for that, and it's not "Patriotism". "Douchebaggery" does come to mind. So, to the Network Douche Bags, I have a short message for you:
Dear Douche Bag, Go fuck yourself!!
If you want the truth, you can start by turning off your TV set, then taking a sledge hammer to it. After that, it is only necessary that you open your eyes and look.
/rant (Thanx for reading)
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
So Who Shops at Wal-Mart?
I have a question for Liberals: Do you shop at Wal-Mart?
I will make a point.
1) I agree with you that billionaires don't create jobs. Consumer demand creates jobs. Economics 101. I understand that.
2) However, if you shop at Wal-Mart, which outsources jobs to China, then you are not practicing what you preach, because you are not helping to create jobs through consumer demand. If enough people refused to shop at a chain that helps to destroy jobs here in America, then we wouldn't be in the economic pickle we are in. But you have to practice what you preach.
3) While it is demand that creates jobs, where do you want to create them? Here in America, or there in China. While there is demand here, I see a lot of that demand being shipped THERE. and that is part of the problem. In America, we get what we deserve, but if you are willing to give it all away to China, then you deserve what you get.
4) If we all really put America first, we wouldn't be arguing over taxes at all. Taxes would be low, and unemployment would be less than 4%. There would be enough prosperity to go around, and there wouldn't be camps of Democrats and Republicans that are always at each others' throats.
5) But you have to act like an American for that to happen. That means buy American and not set your foot inside stores that don't give a shit about anything but profits, at whatever price has to be paid, whether it is in the blood of Chinese slaves or whether it is in money.
6) You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. If you are certain that it is demand and not billionaires that create jobs, then you have to put your money where your mouth is.
So who shops at Wal-Mart?
(Dana puts on his flame proof suit)
I will make a point.
1) I agree with you that billionaires don't create jobs. Consumer demand creates jobs. Economics 101. I understand that.
2) However, if you shop at Wal-Mart, which outsources jobs to China, then you are not practicing what you preach, because you are not helping to create jobs through consumer demand. If enough people refused to shop at a chain that helps to destroy jobs here in America, then we wouldn't be in the economic pickle we are in. But you have to practice what you preach.
3) While it is demand that creates jobs, where do you want to create them? Here in America, or there in China. While there is demand here, I see a lot of that demand being shipped THERE. and that is part of the problem. In America, we get what we deserve, but if you are willing to give it all away to China, then you deserve what you get.
4) If we all really put America first, we wouldn't be arguing over taxes at all. Taxes would be low, and unemployment would be less than 4%. There would be enough prosperity to go around, and there wouldn't be camps of Democrats and Republicans that are always at each others' throats.
5) But you have to act like an American for that to happen. That means buy American and not set your foot inside stores that don't give a shit about anything but profits, at whatever price has to be paid, whether it is in the blood of Chinese slaves or whether it is in money.
6) You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. If you are certain that it is demand and not billionaires that create jobs, then you have to put your money where your mouth is.
So who shops at Wal-Mart?
(Dana puts on his flame proof suit)
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Do I miss George Bush?
From the Los Angeles Times:
WASHINGTON - In a rare public tribute to his predecessor, President Obama unveiled the formal White House portrait of George W. Bush on Thursday, praising his "strength and resolve" after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Obama recalled the sight of Bush standing atop the rubble at ground zero, "bullhorn in hand," conveying strength not only to the American people but, on behalf of the country, to the wider world.
Yes, it is nice to put politics aside, but we all know the real reason Obama is praising Bush. It's because Obama and Bush are much alike. It might have been Bush who began to break our Constitution, but it is Obama who is putting the final touches on that dastardly deed. Call Obama whatever you want. Some call Obama a Liberal, some call him a centrist, and a few crazies even call him a Kenyan who stole the office. But they are all way off the mark. Barack Obama is really George W. Bush on steroids. Bush might have gone to extremes to twist and mangle the Constitution, but Obama has taken it to new heights that Bush would never have imagined, not even in his wildest wet dreams. When Bush was in office, I often said that he represented all that was wrong with our government. Now that Obama has had a 4 year track record in that office, I can say with confidence that he has definitely outdone Bush when it comes to erosion of our civil liberties.
Remember the poster of George Bush that says "Miss me yet"? Oh yes, I remember it, and guess what? I do miss Bush, not because he stood for the Constitution, but only because he mangled it less than Obama has done.
WASHINGTON - In a rare public tribute to his predecessor, President Obama unveiled the formal White House portrait of George W. Bush on Thursday, praising his "strength and resolve" after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Obama recalled the sight of Bush standing atop the rubble at ground zero, "bullhorn in hand," conveying strength not only to the American people but, on behalf of the country, to the wider world.
Yes, it is nice to put politics aside, but we all know the real reason Obama is praising Bush. It's because Obama and Bush are much alike. It might have been Bush who began to break our Constitution, but it is Obama who is putting the final touches on that dastardly deed. Call Obama whatever you want. Some call Obama a Liberal, some call him a centrist, and a few crazies even call him a Kenyan who stole the office. But they are all way off the mark. Barack Obama is really George W. Bush on steroids. Bush might have gone to extremes to twist and mangle the Constitution, but Obama has taken it to new heights that Bush would never have imagined, not even in his wildest wet dreams. When Bush was in office, I often said that he represented all that was wrong with our government. Now that Obama has had a 4 year track record in that office, I can say with confidence that he has definitely outdone Bush when it comes to erosion of our civil liberties.
Remember the poster of George Bush that says "Miss me yet"? Oh yes, I remember it, and guess what? I do miss Bush, not because he stood for the Constitution, but only because he mangled it less than Obama has done.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Scott Walker's Impending Demise
From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
Gov. Scott Walker's campaign has transferred another $100,000 to the defense fund used to pay his pricey criminal defense lawyers in the lengthy John Doe investigation into activities during Walker's time as county executive.
Newly filed campaign reports show Walker's campaign transferred $70,000 to the Scott Walker Trust on May 3 and another $30,000 on May 17.
That bring the total the first-term governor has put in the defense fund to $160,000 in the past six weeks.
State law requires that the campaign get prior approval from donors before shifting their money to a legal-defense fund. Walker's campaign has declined to identify the contributors who OK'd the transfers.
And here is the key to knowing what's up with Walker in Wisconsin. According to Wisconsin law, a governor, or any other public servant in the state of Wisconsin, may have a legal defense fund if and ONLY if.
1) He has been charged with a crime.
OR
2) He is under investigation for a crime.
Any other use of a legal defense fund, such as the one Walker has set up for himself, would be a felony. So Walker can state all he wants that he is not under investigation for criminal activity. The mere existence of his defense fund says that he is lying, but if by chance he is telling the truth, then he has committed a serious crime nonetheless. Either way, he loses.
As I have said earlier, I still predict Walker to win his recall election, but I am now certain that Walker's career could very well end in a prison cell, just like Blago's career ended in Illinois.
Gov. Scott Walker's campaign has transferred another $100,000 to the defense fund used to pay his pricey criminal defense lawyers in the lengthy John Doe investigation into activities during Walker's time as county executive.
Newly filed campaign reports show Walker's campaign transferred $70,000 to the Scott Walker Trust on May 3 and another $30,000 on May 17.
That bring the total the first-term governor has put in the defense fund to $160,000 in the past six weeks.
State law requires that the campaign get prior approval from donors before shifting their money to a legal-defense fund. Walker's campaign has declined to identify the contributors who OK'd the transfers.
And here is the key to knowing what's up with Walker in Wisconsin. According to Wisconsin law, a governor, or any other public servant in the state of Wisconsin, may have a legal defense fund if and ONLY if.
1) He has been charged with a crime.
OR
2) He is under investigation for a crime.
Any other use of a legal defense fund, such as the one Walker has set up for himself, would be a felony. So Walker can state all he wants that he is not under investigation for criminal activity. The mere existence of his defense fund says that he is lying, but if by chance he is telling the truth, then he has committed a serious crime nonetheless. Either way, he loses.
As I have said earlier, I still predict Walker to win his recall election, but I am now certain that Walker's career could very well end in a prison cell, just like Blago's career ended in Illinois.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians
OK, here is the deal. Republicans are like your pissed-off father when you were a kid. You better do what he tells you or you get an ass kicking. Democrats are like your doting mommy. Eat your vegetables or there will be consequences. Why? "Because I love you", she says. But you still gotta eat the damn vegetables, whether or not you want to. But Libertarians? Yea, that's the ticket. You can eat whatever the hell you want, stay out late at night, and even get drunk or stoned every day. Mommy and daddy says that's OK, as long as you don't screw over anybody else while doing it. Therefore, you don't have to eat your vegetables, and you don't get your ass kicked either. Of course, many homes have a Democrat mommy and a Republican daddy, and they are always telling you that the other one is wrong, and each wants your endorsement. What will it be? An ass kicking every day, or eating broccoli that you hate every day? And, to make matters worse, mommy and daddy even call each other bitch and son of a bitch, and make up shit about each other that they tell you. That's OK too. That's politics. And that is why I, more often than not, vote Libertarian. Thank you. LOL.
War, war, and more war
Let's see now, how many wars do we have going? We've got Iraq, Afganistan, the war on coal, the war on clean energy, the war on drugs, the war on women, the war on Christianity, the war on workers, the war on Christmas, the war on civil rights, the war on drilling, the war on Conservatism, the war on Liberalism, the war on consumers, the war on banksters, the war on the poor, the war on the rich, the war on the Tea Party, the war on Occupy Wall Street, the war on hunger, the war on drunk drivers, the war on fat people, the war on teenage loose women, the war on stupid TV programming, and a lot of other faux wars going on. Amidst all the reporting on all these wars (and many others), they left one war out, which is...... drum roll, please.....
....The war on common sense, which was started by Washington politicians of both parties many years ago. Damn, the Liberals like to complain about perpetual war, but they seem to have missed this one. What's up with that shit?
NOTE: This rant is part of my war on bullshit!! Thanx for listening, and if you didn't listen, or if you disagree with me, then damn it, let's go have a fucking war. I figure that if we can't beat all those warmongering assholes, then we might as well fucking join them. LOL.
....The war on common sense, which was started by Washington politicians of both parties many years ago. Damn, the Liberals like to complain about perpetual war, but they seem to have missed this one. What's up with that shit?
NOTE: This rant is part of my war on bullshit!! Thanx for listening, and if you didn't listen, or if you disagree with me, then damn it, let's go have a fucking war. I figure that if we can't beat all those warmongering assholes, then we might as well fucking join them. LOL.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
A statement to apathetic Americans
http://www.americanselect.org/news/5-2012/release
Americans Elect has decided not to field a candidate this year, the reason being that there was a lack of interest. So I have my own statement to make to Americans. If Obama is reelected, or if Romney beats him and is elected, and you happen to be one of the ones who didn't vote for either, don't bitch about government being fucked up. Obama and Romney are not the problem. YOU ARE!! When you don't give a shit long enough to turn off Dancing with the Stars and get your flabby ass off the couch just long enough to vote or otherwise participate, then you deserve the government you end up getting. Stop whining about your government. By your inaction YOU helped to create it, so just shut your fucking mouth. I don't want to hear it. Just live with what you helped to create, and may God have mercy on your pathetic soul.
/rant
Americans Elect has decided not to field a candidate this year, the reason being that there was a lack of interest. So I have my own statement to make to Americans. If Obama is reelected, or if Romney beats him and is elected, and you happen to be one of the ones who didn't vote for either, don't bitch about government being fucked up. Obama and Romney are not the problem. YOU ARE!! When you don't give a shit long enough to turn off Dancing with the Stars and get your flabby ass off the couch just long enough to vote or otherwise participate, then you deserve the government you end up getting. Stop whining about your government. By your inaction YOU helped to create it, so just shut your fucking mouth. I don't want to hear it. Just live with what you helped to create, and may God have mercy on your pathetic soul.
/rant
Monday, May 14, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
The Ted Nugent and Secret Service Show
Want to know what's interesting? The Secret Service wants to investigate Ted Nugent for making a veiled threat to assassinate the president. Yeah, I saw the video he made, and even went over it with a fine-toothed comb several times. I couldn't see the threat anywhere. Someone please help me. Where is it? Again, I just don't see it.
But let's take a look at our buddies at the Secret Service, who are protecting America, and have dedicated their lives to..... Fucking? Seems that the Secret Service is in a bit of a spotlight of it's own, since a few of their own people are in trouble for getting it on with prostitutes during President Obama's visit to Columbia. I know, the Secret Service is only doing it's job, and you can be sure that, should any issue arise, besides what's in their pants, they are ready and willing to sacrifice their lives by throwing themselves on top of the hookers they are escorting. Damn, America should feel safer already..... Maybe not. I hope those agents are wearing condoms.
Could it be that the Secret Service listened to Nugent's song "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang" too many times and are now having auditory hallucinations induced by "Cat Scratch Fever"?
But let's take a look at our buddies at the Secret Service, who are protecting America, and have dedicated their lives to..... Fucking? Seems that the Secret Service is in a bit of a spotlight of it's own, since a few of their own people are in trouble for getting it on with prostitutes during President Obama's visit to Columbia. I know, the Secret Service is only doing it's job, and you can be sure that, should any issue arise, besides what's in their pants, they are ready and willing to sacrifice their lives by throwing themselves on top of the hookers they are escorting. Damn, America should feel safer already..... Maybe not. I hope those agents are wearing condoms.
Could it be that the Secret Service listened to Nugent's song "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang" too many times and are now having auditory hallucinations induced by "Cat Scratch Fever"?
OK, Folks, Let's Rub Our Bishops
For a while, Republicans have been backing the Catholic Church's decrees on who pays for contraception, while Democrats have been telling the Catholic Church to keep out of it. Guess what is happening now? The Catholic Church is telling Congress to leave food stamps and other aid to poor people alone. As on cue, Republicans and Democrats have traded places, with Liberals backing the Catholic Church and Conservatives telling the Church to butt out.
OK, what's up with that? I thought Jesus didn't represent Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, or Republicans. But, depending on the issue, the Catholic Church is both an angel and a demon to each and every political animal in the United States. One moment, Republicans praise the Catholic Church while Democrats demonize it, and the next moment, Republicans have some not very nice things to say about the Church, while Democrats think the Church is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It just goes to further my own belief that politics is nothing more than various collections of political interests disguised as ideologies, and that the use of the Catholic Church as a pawn in various agendas amounts to no more than mental masturbation......
Hang on a minute, I think the Catholic Church is about to make another statement. 3 - 2 - 1.....
OK, folks, time to whip it out and, once more, rub your bishop.
OK, what's up with that? I thought Jesus didn't represent Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, or Republicans. But, depending on the issue, the Catholic Church is both an angel and a demon to each and every political animal in the United States. One moment, Republicans praise the Catholic Church while Democrats demonize it, and the next moment, Republicans have some not very nice things to say about the Church, while Democrats think the Church is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It just goes to further my own belief that politics is nothing more than various collections of political interests disguised as ideologies, and that the use of the Catholic Church as a pawn in various agendas amounts to no more than mental masturbation......
Hang on a minute, I think the Catholic Church is about to make another statement. 3 - 2 - 1.....
OK, folks, time to whip it out and, once more, rub your bishop.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
On the improving economy
Obama says things are improving. Well, things have gotten better for me since Obama took office, but let me let you in on a little secret. It didn't have anything to do with Obama, Democrats, Republicans, or anybody else. It was all me.
Screw the politicians. I don't need 'em.
Screw the politicians. I don't need 'em.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
The debauchery of the Catholic Church
News from Milwaukee, Wisconsin:
MILWAUKEE (WSAU) An attorney says at least 8,000 kids were sexually abused by over 100 priests and other offenders in the Milwaukee Catholic Diocese. Jeffrey Anderson made the assertion yesterday at a court hearing on the first compensation claims filed by abuse victims as part of church's bankruptcy proceedings. Anderson told Judge Susan Kelley that sealed bankruptcy documents outlined the extent of the abuse. He said the offenders include 75 priests who have not been previously named by the archdiocese. Anderson represents over half of the 570 victims who filed for compensation.
And this is only the diocese for one single city, Milwaukee. Extrapolate this to the world, and it is easy to see that millions of children, over the years, have been sexually abused by priests and other workers in the Catholic church.... Which brings me to this point.....
How dare the Catholic church get on it's moral high horse and tell people how to run their lives, and make demands on women regarding contraception, abortion, or what have you!! Yes, the very same people who make these demands are the very same people who looked the other way when their priests were raping children, and some of them were not even looking the other way, but were participating in the raping of children themselves. And this goes for the Pope himself. He also looked the other way when priests were raping children, and even attempted to cover it up. And these people have the unmitigated audacity to tell others that they are going to hell? And the Catholic Church has the unmitigated audacity to inject itself into politics in an attempt to force others to live their lives how they want them to? My answer to the Catholic Church is the following: Physician, heal thyself. You people are no more qualified to dictate morality to us than a prostitute is qualified to teach sex education to children. Jesus said that we should know of anything by the fruit it bears. Well, I have seen enough fruit of the Catholic Church to know that this fruit is only fit to be thrown away as garbage.
MILWAUKEE (WSAU) An attorney says at least 8,000 kids were sexually abused by over 100 priests and other offenders in the Milwaukee Catholic Diocese. Jeffrey Anderson made the assertion yesterday at a court hearing on the first compensation claims filed by abuse victims as part of church's bankruptcy proceedings. Anderson told Judge Susan Kelley that sealed bankruptcy documents outlined the extent of the abuse. He said the offenders include 75 priests who have not been previously named by the archdiocese. Anderson represents over half of the 570 victims who filed for compensation.
And this is only the diocese for one single city, Milwaukee. Extrapolate this to the world, and it is easy to see that millions of children, over the years, have been sexually abused by priests and other workers in the Catholic church.... Which brings me to this point.....
How dare the Catholic church get on it's moral high horse and tell people how to run their lives, and make demands on women regarding contraception, abortion, or what have you!! Yes, the very same people who make these demands are the very same people who looked the other way when their priests were raping children, and some of them were not even looking the other way, but were participating in the raping of children themselves. And this goes for the Pope himself. He also looked the other way when priests were raping children, and even attempted to cover it up. And these people have the unmitigated audacity to tell others that they are going to hell? And the Catholic Church has the unmitigated audacity to inject itself into politics in an attempt to force others to live their lives how they want them to? My answer to the Catholic Church is the following: Physician, heal thyself. You people are no more qualified to dictate morality to us than a prostitute is qualified to teach sex education to children. Jesus said that we should know of anything by the fruit it bears. Well, I have seen enough fruit of the Catholic Church to know that this fruit is only fit to be thrown away as garbage.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
I know you are but what am I?
What's up with Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich accusing each other of being Liberals?
Asked whether they are Liberal or Conservative, just about anybody will say one or the other. But, when asked that question on specific issues, the answers are all over the place, depending on the issue. That is why it is not a good thing to peg someone, and put him in a box, as one or the other. But most do, and a few others do it to demonize an opponent. Here is the irony of our age: Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich calling each other Liberals, when each of them has done things in the past that could be construed as Liberal. But is either one a Conservative? Once again, depends on the issue, and past voting record, which tells the real story. When both say they are Conservative, they are both telling the truth. When each accuses the other of being a Liberal, again they are both telling the truth. Depends on the context.
Asked whether they are Liberal or Conservative, just about anybody will say one or the other. But, when asked that question on specific issues, the answers are all over the place, depending on the issue. That is why it is not a good thing to peg someone, and put him in a box, as one or the other. But most do, and a few others do it to demonize an opponent. Here is the irony of our age: Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich calling each other Liberals, when each of them has done things in the past that could be construed as Liberal. But is either one a Conservative? Once again, depends on the issue, and past voting record, which tells the real story. When both say they are Conservative, they are both telling the truth. When each accuses the other of being a Liberal, again they are both telling the truth. Depends on the context.
Monday, January 30, 2012
The Republican Civil War - 2012 Edition
This is not the first time Republicans have fought each other for control of the minds and agenda of the Republiclan Party. You saw it after Reagan left office, when Neocons and Paleocons fought for control. But this year, the war is playing out much like it did in 1964. albeit with a different outcome looming.
In 1964, Barry Goldwater was the juggernaut, an ideological purist, and William Scranton, a Northeast establishment Republican pulled out all the stops in an attempt to derail Goldwater's nomination. During this attempt, he attempted to recruit Mit Romney's father, George, to carry the banner for the "Stop Goldwater" Campaign. George Romney turned down this request. That year, after Goldwater was nominated, a few of the establishment Republiclans, and Scranton himself, worked somewhat with the Democrats towards Goldwater's defeat, and in 1968, got their man, a moderate named Richard Nixon, elected.
This year, the shoe is on the other foot, with an establishment Republican being the juggernaut, with the ideological purists of the party attempting to stop him, but this battle is not that much unlike that of 1964, with establishment Republicans waging war with the purists. In this context, I have a few observations to make.
1) Romney will be the nominee. There is no doubt in my mind.
2) With Romney as the nominee, Republicans have an outside shot to knock off Obama this year.
3) Romney's lead over Gingrich shows that the influence of the Tea Party is waning.
4) For the Democrats, Occupy Wall Street is having a big say in the agenda.
5) For the record, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are excellent examples of grass roots movements, where people, fed up with how things work in Washington, are making their voices heard.
6) However, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have been coopted by the fringes on the right and left, respectively, and hijacked by the political parties which support them. Thus, they become not grass roots, but movements controlled by party apparatus.
7) Why will this election be close? Because, as people have become fed up with the Tea Party's extremism, they will also become fed up with the extremisim of Occupy Wall Street, and vote accordingly.
8) Who wins this year? IMHO, this election is Obama's to lose, but Democrats should not count their chickens, which are not in the bank yet. Obama could still blow this one, and if he does, Republicans will have the right candidate in place to take over. He will be a canddate who actually has a chance of winning.
9) It is Independent and moderate hearts both parties are going to have to win over, in order to win the election.
10) I don't care what the polls say. This one is going to be very close.
In 1964, Barry Goldwater was the juggernaut, an ideological purist, and William Scranton, a Northeast establishment Republican pulled out all the stops in an attempt to derail Goldwater's nomination. During this attempt, he attempted to recruit Mit Romney's father, George, to carry the banner for the "Stop Goldwater" Campaign. George Romney turned down this request. That year, after Goldwater was nominated, a few of the establishment Republiclans, and Scranton himself, worked somewhat with the Democrats towards Goldwater's defeat, and in 1968, got their man, a moderate named Richard Nixon, elected.
This year, the shoe is on the other foot, with an establishment Republican being the juggernaut, with the ideological purists of the party attempting to stop him, but this battle is not that much unlike that of 1964, with establishment Republicans waging war with the purists. In this context, I have a few observations to make.
1) Romney will be the nominee. There is no doubt in my mind.
2) With Romney as the nominee, Republicans have an outside shot to knock off Obama this year.
3) Romney's lead over Gingrich shows that the influence of the Tea Party is waning.
4) For the Democrats, Occupy Wall Street is having a big say in the agenda.
5) For the record, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are excellent examples of grass roots movements, where people, fed up with how things work in Washington, are making their voices heard.
6) However, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have been coopted by the fringes on the right and left, respectively, and hijacked by the political parties which support them. Thus, they become not grass roots, but movements controlled by party apparatus.
7) Why will this election be close? Because, as people have become fed up with the Tea Party's extremism, they will also become fed up with the extremisim of Occupy Wall Street, and vote accordingly.
8) Who wins this year? IMHO, this election is Obama's to lose, but Democrats should not count their chickens, which are not in the bank yet. Obama could still blow this one, and if he does, Republicans will have the right candidate in place to take over. He will be a canddate who actually has a chance of winning.
9) It is Independent and moderate hearts both parties are going to have to win over, in order to win the election.
10) I don't care what the polls say. This one is going to be very close.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
Much ado over pro-forma sessions
Did President Obama violate the Constitution of the United States when he made recess appointments to the Labor Board, as well as the Consumer Protection Agency? Republicans claim that he did, so let's examine that claim, and consider the question of whether Obama's "recess" appointments are Constitutional.
From the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
OK, that's a given. Advice and Consent. But what happens when the Senate refuses to do it's job, by refusing the Constitutional role of Advice and Consent? We will get to that later on. But first, let's get to the meat of the issue. From Article 1, Section 5:
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent ofthe other, adjourn for more than three days,nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
So the Republican-controlled House has not given it's consent to the Senate to adjourn. Therefore, the Senate has been holding pro-forma sessions every 3 days, in which no business is conducted, other than providing an "appearance" that it is still in session. But Obama, nevertheless, made his appointments. Unconstitutional? If you listen to Glenn Beck and company, yes. But it seems that Glen Beck doesn't know as much about the Constitution as he would like people to believe. He and Republicans seem to have conveniently forgotten this little part of the Constitution, namely Article 2, Section 3:
[The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
That's correct. On extraordinary occasions, the president may consider Congress adjourned."to such time as he shall think proper". And what would be considered an extraordinary occasion? The Senate refusing to do it's job, of course. And there we have it. Republicans can whine all they want about this, but if they attempt to take it to court, they will look like idiots..... Wait, they already look like idiots, in attempting to create much ado over pro-forma sessions, or in other words, much ado about nothing.
From the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
OK, that's a given. Advice and Consent. But what happens when the Senate refuses to do it's job, by refusing the Constitutional role of Advice and Consent? We will get to that later on. But first, let's get to the meat of the issue. From Article 1, Section 5:
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent ofthe other, adjourn for more than three days,nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
So the Republican-controlled House has not given it's consent to the Senate to adjourn. Therefore, the Senate has been holding pro-forma sessions every 3 days, in which no business is conducted, other than providing an "appearance" that it is still in session. But Obama, nevertheless, made his appointments. Unconstitutional? If you listen to Glenn Beck and company, yes. But it seems that Glen Beck doesn't know as much about the Constitution as he would like people to believe. He and Republicans seem to have conveniently forgotten this little part of the Constitution, namely Article 2, Section 3:
[The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
That's correct. On extraordinary occasions, the president may consider Congress adjourned."to such time as he shall think proper". And what would be considered an extraordinary occasion? The Senate refusing to do it's job, of course. And there we have it. Republicans can whine all they want about this, but if they attempt to take it to court, they will look like idiots..... Wait, they already look like idiots, in attempting to create much ado over pro-forma sessions, or in other words, much ado about nothing.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
2012 - The year of the twilight's last gleaming
From FOX News:
In a scathing statement, the head of the ACLU, and other leading civil liberties and human rights groups who were among President Obama's most ardent campaign supporters said the President's decision to sign a sprawling defense bill including controversial detainee provisions would tarnish his legacy.
And that it will. There is your hope and change, Democrats, shredding the Constitution of the United States, right where the Bush administration left off. And if that isn't enough, there is yet another piece of hypocrisy embedded in this law...... Obama added a signing statement, saying that his administration will interpret the new law in such a way that American citizens would not be detained without due process guaranteed by the Constitution. I have a LOT of problems with this signing statement:
1) First of all, and most obvious, Obama blasted Bush for using signing statements, and now here he is, using one.
2) An Obama signing statement doesn't mean a thing, once Obama leaves office. A different president could negate it in a New York minute.
3) Just because Democrats in Congress didn't have the backbone to challenge Bush on his signing statements doesn't mean that Congressional Republicans won't have the backbone too. On this, though, I must admit that Republicans will go along with the status quo, but their hatred of Obama does make this option pretty tempting. On that, I am rooting for the Republicans, should they decide to take this road.
Here is the deal, folks. The Obama administration has let loose upon the land a law that is just as Odious as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were signed into law by John Adams. The law is unconstitutional. Period. But where is the Democratic outcry in Congress..... You know, the kind of outcry we heard almost every day during Bush's reign? I only hear Democratic hypocrisy, cloaked in silence.
Have we now entered the age of the twilight's last gleaming? It depends on the American people. If we are content to replace our interest in the political process with interest in Dancing with the Stars, Justin Bieber, and the rest of the garbage that passes for information these days, then we will get exactly the kind of Government we deserve. And Big Brother will be eternally grateful. Say goodbye to America, folks.
Finally, if a case is ever to be made for a third party, this is it, just as long as they don't sell America down the river too.
In a scathing statement, the head of the ACLU, and other leading civil liberties and human rights groups who were among President Obama's most ardent campaign supporters said the President's decision to sign a sprawling defense bill including controversial detainee provisions would tarnish his legacy.
And that it will. There is your hope and change, Democrats, shredding the Constitution of the United States, right where the Bush administration left off. And if that isn't enough, there is yet another piece of hypocrisy embedded in this law...... Obama added a signing statement, saying that his administration will interpret the new law in such a way that American citizens would not be detained without due process guaranteed by the Constitution. I have a LOT of problems with this signing statement:
1) First of all, and most obvious, Obama blasted Bush for using signing statements, and now here he is, using one.
2) An Obama signing statement doesn't mean a thing, once Obama leaves office. A different president could negate it in a New York minute.
3) Just because Democrats in Congress didn't have the backbone to challenge Bush on his signing statements doesn't mean that Congressional Republicans won't have the backbone too. On this, though, I must admit that Republicans will go along with the status quo, but their hatred of Obama does make this option pretty tempting. On that, I am rooting for the Republicans, should they decide to take this road.
Here is the deal, folks. The Obama administration has let loose upon the land a law that is just as Odious as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were signed into law by John Adams. The law is unconstitutional. Period. But where is the Democratic outcry in Congress..... You know, the kind of outcry we heard almost every day during Bush's reign? I only hear Democratic hypocrisy, cloaked in silence.
Have we now entered the age of the twilight's last gleaming? It depends on the American people. If we are content to replace our interest in the political process with interest in Dancing with the Stars, Justin Bieber, and the rest of the garbage that passes for information these days, then we will get exactly the kind of Government we deserve. And Big Brother will be eternally grateful. Say goodbye to America, folks.
Finally, if a case is ever to be made for a third party, this is it, just as long as they don't sell America down the river too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
