February 3rd, 2010

Uncle Milty kicks ass...

Here's a video of Milton Friedman single-handedly DESTROYING Three Socialist Morons from Iceland....

Like most Socialists,they know their arguments are bankrupt and rather resort to semantic quibbles and underhanded smears rather than logic....but Milton hands them their asses...you can tell at the end that they know they've gotten pwned....

If the Socialists here want to know why their ideology fails, watch this video...
Dr. Seuss

An invitation to a Tea Party

The Tea Party Movement is trying to transform itself from a loose coalition of uninformed anger into an actual movement with goals and organization. They are trying to do this without becoming a top-down organization; the goals are now being suggested and voted upon in a democratic process.

Although I giggle and groan at the Tea Party Movement*(1), I am watching with interest and a glimmer of hope that the T-Partiers can come up with a better platform than the GOP's current "oppose everything without offering anything" strategy. It's only a glimmer though, because the current T-Party is a bigger oppositional force than the GOP.

Their vote is being done online now at Contract From America. It's definitely worth looking at. There is a "Contract From America panel" that selects the topics to be voted on,*(2) and the voting is democratic-ish, being that it is a loosely controlled internet poll.

Just for fun, I'm posting their current top 10 in a poll for us here:
Collapse )
There you go folks. Have at it!

EDIT: Sorry, I should have made that last question on a scale of 0 to 10, not 1 to 10. My apologies to the fascist marxist America-haters that couldn't find one thing they agreed with in the Tea Party platform. ;)

*(1) I'm being careful not to call them Tea Baggers anymore, even though they were the ones who initially chose this name. After word spread about the definition of Tea Bagging on Urban Dictionary, movement members considered their original name to be a pejorative, and got very indignant about it. Although this is one of the most hilarious aspects of the movement, I'll respect their new PC naming convention.

*(2) Which dashes my plan of starting an "Establish a new monarchy now!" write-in campaign.

Where the hell is all the trust?


"49% of Americans say they trust Fox News to 37% who disagree," the poll's authors wrote. "Predictably there is a large party split on this with 74% of Republicans but only 30% of Democrats saying they trust the right leaning network."

"CNN does next best because it is the second most trusted of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. 39% say they trust it compared to 41% who do not, with 59% of Democrats, 33% of independents and 23% of Republicans saying it carries credibility with them.

Now, I am not surprised that republicans trust Fox and distrust MSNBC or that Democrats trust MSNBC and distrust Fox.

What pisses me off is: WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE
Journalism is supposed to be honest and trustworthy--I should distrust my government and then trust the journalists to BE THE TRUTH TELLERS (clearing up the lies of the govt). The media should be giving me honest and direct facts. The BS motto of Fox: "we report, you decide" is lip service to what journalism should be.

Nobody seems to be making a big deal of the fact that the most trusted news network still fails to gain the trust of the majority of Americans. The most trusted news source cannot even get a simple majority to trust them.

That is particularly irksome to me, and I would hope (tho perhaps foolishly) it would irk those who work at those news networks.

Is it a problem of the American people, not trusting what is in fact a trust-worthyy source or is it a problem of the source(s) actually not being trust-worthy.

And lastly:

What news source(s) do you trust? (and if you wanna list your political bent, go ahead, it seems Fox is hardly trusted by democrats/MSNBC not trusted by repubs, so if you are a counter-example I'd be interested to hear about it)
  • merig00

Be Grateful for GOP saying NO

So during the President Obama's appearance at the House Republican retreat, he said the following on the healthcare:

The last thing I will say, though -- let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we've presented -- and there's some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your -- if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

This is pretty much Obama admitting that the House or Senate bill contain provisions which were "snuck in" - I guess by the Democratic members (I don't remember any Republicans writing the bill) that could have prevented people from keeping their current insurance and/or choosing the doctor they want.

I'm not going to ask who snuck it in. It's pointless. However the question is - why didn't the President come out before, rejecting these provisions? Or you truly believe that when he would get the bill on his table, he wouldn't sign it but send it back to Congress with a possibility of it never coming back?