Given the hysterical reaction to Sarah Palin on the left I am cautiously optimistic that we have a chance of avoiding the Obamessiah presidency.
It is clear that the media has abandoned all pretense of objectivity but in the process they make themselves, Obama and the democRAT party look foolish, inept, incompetent, unappealing, etc, etc. So really, I'm glad that 95% of mainstream "journalists" are Obamatrons---the more they react with elite contempt to McCain/Palin the more votes come our way.
I have to say: part of the reason I have been so pessimistic is that I couldn't think about if Obama DOES lose. You think the left wing reacted badly in 200 and 2004 to losing? If they lose this time, I'm thinking riots, democrat politicians baying at the moon, and serious unrest in blue cities. There is NO WAY they will think McCain won fair and square (if that happens) and these unhinged lefties will be out for blood. Yes, I think there will be death, destruction and general mayhem if Obama loses. That said, all you right wing nutjobs better lock and load if you wanna survive after the election.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Health Care
If I have to hear people moaning and whining about "affordable" health care and the "ranks" of the uninsured (always reminds me of the ranks of the undead) I am going to punch someone in the face! Why don't they move to Africa? Healthcare is affordable there. Of course, they'll probably die of malaria (thanks to American eco-fascists) or dysentery.
People constantly bitch and moan about not being able to get health insurance unless you work for a large enough business. I'm sure it is a pain in the ass. But why is it so? Health insurers in most states are required by law to cover all kinds treatments and conditions. Laws also make it difficult to drop patients who commit fraud or to disallow treatments not originally covered. So as a business, what would you do? Obviously, you would take on fewer individuals in the first place to limit your losses down the road.
The uninsured are composed of the following people:
1. Those who choose not to buy it: the young and healthy and people who would rather buy beer than health insurance.
2. Those who cannot get it because they or their spouse do not qualify for a group plan and insurers will not give them an individual plan.
By any objective standard the first group is larger. And to the extent that there are people in the second group it can be chalked up to government policies vis a vis insurance companies and health care providers.
A proliferation of high deductible, catastrophic care health plans would reduce the "ranks" of the uninsured. State regulations make these plans difficult to offer but they make more sense for people in the first group of uninsured and would be a reasonable alternative for people in the 2nd group as well.
Also, lets stop saying "insurance". What people have is health "coverage". Insurance guards against unwanted and/or unlikely events. The form of health care that most people have is not like that. People will go to the doctor at least once a year and most people end up having minor ailments once in a while. These are not unwanted and/or unlikely events.
The lack of health coverage is directly tied to the socialist policies of the democrat party. People are suffering and dying because of the democrat party. And when Obama becomes President even more people will be suffering and dying. Obama is Death's candidate.
Finally, you do not have a "right" to cutting edge, state-of-the-art health care--so get the fuck over it and take care of yourself if you want to live forever.
People constantly bitch and moan about not being able to get health insurance unless you work for a large enough business. I'm sure it is a pain in the ass. But why is it so? Health insurers in most states are required by law to cover all kinds treatments and conditions. Laws also make it difficult to drop patients who commit fraud or to disallow treatments not originally covered. So as a business, what would you do? Obviously, you would take on fewer individuals in the first place to limit your losses down the road.
The uninsured are composed of the following people:
1. Those who choose not to buy it: the young and healthy and people who would rather buy beer than health insurance.
2. Those who cannot get it because they or their spouse do not qualify for a group plan and insurers will not give them an individual plan.
By any objective standard the first group is larger. And to the extent that there are people in the second group it can be chalked up to government policies vis a vis insurance companies and health care providers.
A proliferation of high deductible, catastrophic care health plans would reduce the "ranks" of the uninsured. State regulations make these plans difficult to offer but they make more sense for people in the first group of uninsured and would be a reasonable alternative for people in the 2nd group as well.
Also, lets stop saying "insurance". What people have is health "coverage". Insurance guards against unwanted and/or unlikely events. The form of health care that most people have is not like that. People will go to the doctor at least once a year and most people end up having minor ailments once in a while. These are not unwanted and/or unlikely events.
The lack of health coverage is directly tied to the socialist policies of the democrat party. People are suffering and dying because of the democrat party. And when Obama becomes President even more people will be suffering and dying. Obama is Death's candidate.
Finally, you do not have a "right" to cutting edge, state-of-the-art health care--so get the fuck over it and take care of yourself if you want to live forever.
Questioning Obama's Patriotism
Fuck Obama. I'm gonna question his patriotism---because I know he's not a patriot. I know what part of the left wing he comes from. The "community organizers" I knew from my left wing days were all staunch anti-Americans who harbored thoughts of revolution in their hearts. Revolution to a new Stalinist order---where Republicans no longer exist, except in a gulag. These leftists admired the Soviet Union and did their best to hinder the fight against communism. I know, because I was one of them. To Obama, the flag is worth burning, but not wearing. I never thought America would elect someone who hated the country but now it appears that we might.
To people like Obama, the whole idea of America as a sovereign nation is quaint and we should start working on the socialist one world order as soon as possible.
I believe we should hunker down and get ready to kick some Rooskie ass. The minute they step over the line in Poland what will President Obama do? Negotiate? I hope not, but I fear so. I may have to join the Polish army so I can live with myself as an American whose leader abandons their allies.
You might notice my pessimistic assumption that Obama will win the election. However much I hope he won't I have to operate on the assumption that he will. However much I love Sarah Palin, I just don't think she's gonna get us over---I don't think any VP choice would have. I could be wrong--the polls are tightening and we still don't know how much of "Bradley effect" there will be in the general---but I remain pessimistic.
To people like Obama, the whole idea of America as a sovereign nation is quaint and we should start working on the socialist one world order as soon as possible.
I believe we should hunker down and get ready to kick some Rooskie ass. The minute they step over the line in Poland what will President Obama do? Negotiate? I hope not, but I fear so. I may have to join the Polish army so I can live with myself as an American whose leader abandons their allies.
You might notice my pessimistic assumption that Obama will win the election. However much I hope he won't I have to operate on the assumption that he will. However much I love Sarah Palin, I just don't think she's gonna get us over---I don't think any VP choice would have. I could be wrong--the polls are tightening and we still don't know how much of "Bradley effect" there will be in the general---but I remain pessimistic.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Us Weekly
James Rainey in the LA Times criticizes Us Weekly's yellow journalism smear job of Palin, so he deserves congratulations. But then he reports that after the GOP women berated the press for its smears of Palin, he confronted Jane Swift (ex-Gov-MA) and asked who (in the mainstream media) had smeared her. Swift was at a loss and lamely mentioned Daily Kos. But just because Swift couldn't think of any doesn't mean there aren't any examples. There are---in the Los Angeles Times just a few pages after Rainey's column. Rosa "Dumb Ass" Brooks and Gloria "Ms Irrelevant" Steinem smear Palin. It should be noted that the LA Times has had 4 anti-Palin op-eds in two days (2 on each day)--that is 66% of the op-eds for two days running. And what about the New York Times lying about the AIP? NPR has aired every bit of dirty laundry possible. So don't try and pretend the MSM isn't trying to destroy this woman---because they know, if they can, the election is over. And since she is purportedly unknown (that's bullshit by the way) everything can be presented as a huge mistake by her AND McCain, making it easier to do away with her. Everyone knows what a buffoon Biden is already so that info is built into his candidacy. Palin, on the other hand, is fresh meat. And the vultures are circling---but as someone else noted she's a lot like Anton Chigurr--the killer in "No Country for Old Men"---she can't be killed!
And.....
Whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.
She is the second coming of Margaret Thatcher.
I need a cigarette!
And.....
Whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.
She is the second coming of Margaret Thatcher.
I need a cigarette!
Harry Reid, Sucker
Harry Reid shows he can't handle Sarah Palin.
I first read about Reid's response last night on CNN, where his spokesass called Palin "shrill". Clearly they don't see that they walked right into a trap: That is exactly the response that will make votes for McCain.
From CNN:
I first read about Reid's response last night on CNN, where his spokesass called Palin "shrill". Clearly they don't see that they walked right into a trap: That is exactly the response that will make votes for McCain.
From CNN:
"Anyone who knows Senator Reid knows he never backs down when he's fighting for what's right and that he always stands up to John McCain when he is wrong," Jim Manley, Reid's press secretary, told CNN.When you respond to these types of attacks (the one from Palin) you lend credence to the attack. It's best not to respond at all. Or just attack back on a different subject. If this is how the democrat party will respond in the campaign I am very confident of a McCain victory. Thanks, Harry!
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Tim Rutten--Jackass Part 1,378,654
Tim Rutten is clearly incapable of rational thought. Take his column from today.
Here is his "logic":
Palin is anti-abortion.
Her daughter is pregnant out-of-wedlock and will keep the baby.
Her daughter is making a "choice" that Palin would deny to others.
Therefore Palin is a......what, exactly? He doesn't say. A meanie? A hypocrite?
So, all women who are anti-abortion and have a baby are guilty of some unknown thought crime invented by Tim Rutten to make a political point.
What Rutten leaves out of course is that for a Christian there is no "choice" involved: you always keep the baby. Palin is not denying the course of action that her daughter is taking to others---that would be hypocrisy. She would deny killing the baby to others--a denial she and her daughter extend to themselves. What, exactly, is the problem here? He can oppose her anti-abortion position on the merits of his position, if any. But he chooses to present a logically incoherent argument that Palin is a........what? Who knows? But she's a conservative baddie, that's for sure!
Here is his "logic":
Palin is anti-abortion.
Her daughter is pregnant out-of-wedlock and will keep the baby.
Her daughter is making a "choice" that Palin would deny to others.
Therefore Palin is a......what, exactly? He doesn't say. A meanie? A hypocrite?
So, all women who are anti-abortion and have a baby are guilty of some unknown thought crime invented by Tim Rutten to make a political point.
What Rutten leaves out of course is that for a Christian there is no "choice" involved: you always keep the baby. Palin is not denying the course of action that her daughter is taking to others---that would be hypocrisy. She would deny killing the baby to others--a denial she and her daughter extend to themselves. What, exactly, is the problem here? He can oppose her anti-abortion position on the merits of his position, if any. But he chooses to present a logically incoherent argument that Palin is a........what? Who knows? But she's a conservative baddie, that's for sure!
Democrats--Party of Favors
I was listening to my local public (read "Maoist") radio station yesterday. The host was interviewing JC Watts at the RNC. A caller (from Hollywood) asked how he or any other black person could be in the Republican party.
It got me thinking. It is clear that people join or align with the Democratic party based on what is or what they perceive to be their own naked self interest. Black people should be in the party because democrats in power will give them money and other advantages over others, eg expanded affirmative action. There are no principles, moral or political, involved (although they pretend there are). Democrats promise a direct delivery of all kinds of tangible benefits to distinct groups of whiners at the expense of other Americans. Republicans, on the other hand, generally do not.
The left seethes at the religious right but what real advantage do the Republicans extend to the religious right by opposing abortion? The religious right opposes abortion as a matter of moral principle--they gain nothing but their souls by their attempt to overturn Roe v Wade.
Meanwhile, we have Obama promising equal pay for equal work. And what is the right to abortion but the right to avoid a large financial burden--a child? Does the democratic party stand for any moral principle at all? I can't see that it does.
It got me thinking. It is clear that people join or align with the Democratic party based on what is or what they perceive to be their own naked self interest. Black people should be in the party because democrats in power will give them money and other advantages over others, eg expanded affirmative action. There are no principles, moral or political, involved (although they pretend there are). Democrats promise a direct delivery of all kinds of tangible benefits to distinct groups of whiners at the expense of other Americans. Republicans, on the other hand, generally do not.
The left seethes at the religious right but what real advantage do the Republicans extend to the religious right by opposing abortion? The religious right opposes abortion as a matter of moral principle--they gain nothing but their souls by their attempt to overturn Roe v Wade.
Meanwhile, we have Obama promising equal pay for equal work. And what is the right to abortion but the right to avoid a large financial burden--a child? Does the democratic party stand for any moral principle at all? I can't see that it does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
