Obama Anti-Romney Attack Ads...enough is enough!
Today while I was watching my Las Vegas reruns on TNT, I saw a commercial for Obama which attacked Mitt Romney, made questionable references and quotes about how he's "bad for America" to various tv and print media sources, and generally was as distasteful as Obama himself. Just when I didn't think it possible to lose even more respect for our President, he sinks to a new low.
It's ironic that organizations which received taxpayer funded Obama-bailout money have been found guilty of exporting jobs overseas. These numbers can be attributed to directly. Nobody ever has an answer for which jobs exactly were shipped overseas via Bain Capital...were they people who worked directly for them? Were they employees of corporations Bain Capital invested in? Were they neighbors' cousins of a receptionist who once talked to a friend's friend who said Bain Capital ships employees overseas? Drop some names, please. In any case, the Obama bailout companies guilty of it are directly responsible and can be found easily. Are Obama suppporters so rabidly blind they don't stop to ponder that situation? Democrats are always turning tables without ever knowing what's on their own table first. They just throw a hankerchief over it so the public can't see and promise us it's something it isn't.
The hypocrisy runs rank, like many Obama voters.
What's wrong with Mitt Romney? Honestly, what's wrong with him? I'm getting the same thing that happened with Sarah Palin, where "she was an idiot" or asking "would you want her instead of Obama leading?" You'd say things like "well she has actual executive experience; furthermore, she's not running against Obama, she's running for Vice President," yet the election became a referendum between Obama and Sarah Palin, since John McCain had a pretty untouchable uncontroversial record. You'd say things like "what experience does Obama have? He's been in a state senate for 4 years, then the Senate for 2 years, then started running for office. He voted absent on everything." Don't answer my question by asking a question about Mitt Romney's scrupulous record. So far the only bad thing about Mitt Romney is he made his own fortune through determination, intelligence, and savvy. Isn't that like..the entire point of the American Dream? "Mitt Romney is rich! He's evil!" Well, he made his own money from nothing. That's more than you can say about John Kerry who hitched his wagon to the Ketchup star. He married money, someone with way more monay than Mitt Romney, and he parks his yacht in an adjacent state to avoid paying his state's more expensive harbor tax. Oh yeah - and Swift Vets. But John Kerry was apparently flawless and perfect. Mitt Romney, a good looking, respectable, self-made man is pure evil.
Somebody tell me what's wrong with Mitt Romney?
Look - I'll admit it - I check out the DRudge report (www.drudgereport.com) every day. Touted as a right-wing news aggregator, almost like a Republican Reddit - Drudge posts headlines often germane to issues of interest to conservatives. However, I think he is hurting his cause (although he gets hundreds of millions of unique visitors a year) and here is why.
We are in the worst economic downturn in three quarters of a century. Record numbers of college graduates are having difficulty finding part-time, menial positions. So, it comes as a surprise to me that Drudge keeps posting stories all about the ridiculous, undeserved sums of money the Facebook founders are making from their IPO. I hesitate to call them "founders," since all they found was a way to rip off a pre-existing idea and through a combination of the right investors and chance, beat out rival yet earlier incarnations of social networking, least among them the one that existed at their own school. While it's not uncommon for Drudge to throw in a few headlines about pop culture or entertainers, the constant barrage of "at least 1,000 new millionaires!" headlines nestled between links about Birther stories and oil prices, filed neatly a few inches beneath links on Greece's probable default and unemployment data, is cringe-inducing, to say the least.
Matt - *why* on Earth do you think people want to hear about a bunch of twentysomething douchebags making millions or billions of dollars when they are a.) smarter b.) as or more educated and c.) harder working and they can't find a full time 9-5 making $30 grand a year? I get that you make a million dollars a year from ad space so you have probably lost touch with your readers, and *everyone in America,* but it just comes across as pandering to rich people and an attempt to schmooze with people who made their money off a stolen but well-adapted idea instead of through working and creating an actual product. Stick to stories about the economy, your convenient links to Romney v. Obama polling data, and your bizarre and sexually ambiguous obsession with aging pop stars like Madonna and Donna Summer. Thanks!
It is pretty austentatious to me that after the foils and follies of the AGW movement the past couple years - i.e. ClimateGate, ClimateGate 2.0, ad infinitum et nauseum, that the media would be a little more behooved to adhere to a neutral point of view. You'd think blanket assumptions or articles regarding warming would have stopped. When do liberals ever do anything "you'd think" should happen?
This is a pretty innocuous story, right? Just a story I actually started reading just because I thought it seemed interesting, to be honest. Then, I get to the end - where it discusses the "effects of 'CLIMATE CHANGE'" will "lead to warmer temperatures." Oh, really? Seems like they made up their minds about the direction climate change was leading.
This is but one of a slough of insertions I've been noticing lately, and accuweather.com is much worse with it than weather.com, although neither are free from guilt. In a recent story that is still on their front page about their predictions for the upcoming hurricane season, and how it will be less severe and below average, mostly due to an El Nino pattern that is setting up, throw in the necessary prerequisite AGW alarm bells at the end, informing us not to coast in our hurricane preparedness this season because "climate change will lead to warmer ocean temperatures and more intense hurricanes." Ironic, isn't it? Instead of focusing on El Nino - a pattern of above average sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific 2000 miles west of Chile that has dampening effects on hurricane genesis in the Atlantic - it's all about to ignore that story and focus on the possibility of perceived future warming that might lead to increased hurricane activity. I won't even start to tell you about how wet their panties were over the week of 80 degree temperatures we had in March. If that wasn't proof of global warming, then nothing is. Oh, wait, I forgot, the historic, very unusual, and unprecedented snow events in October and in April. The average high in the mid-atlantic and southern New England states for April 23rd is 69 degrees. Temperatures hit 25. That's 44 degrees below average. The largest departure from average we had in March was 35 degrees above average. Even though the cold was more historic than the warmth, the cold was proof of global warming, because more heat in the atmosphere means more cold air, but it also means more warm air too.
Expect a future article from accuweather.com telling you how both increased and decreased rainfall, colder temperatures and warmer temperatures, and how walking your dog are all contributing to global warming.
On one hand, judge not lest ye be judged; the West likes to claim they are in touch with Judeo Christian values, and yet I find myself judging the rest of the world all the time, even subconsciously, something I am never proud of doing and work hard to stop myself from doing, yet something I also notice is very pervasive. I agree it's a nice gesture to bridge-build with the North Korean people and maybe one day history will recall the UN's lowering of the flag as the first brick paved in a road to better relations between N Korea and the rest of the world. But, at the same time, I'm also kind of aggravated because the UN does exist on US soil and the US is its largest financial contributor. The US also believes in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and I feel that in a way, even though te US and the UN are NOT the same, I don't see the harm in upholding those ideals, I don't really see how any rational person could possibly have a problem with endeavouring to pursue these ideals, I don't see "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as controversial goals, and by the UN lowering its flag on US soil for N Korea, it's kind of telling man's most noble qualities, or at least telling those who believe it's worthwhile to try and achieve or embrace those qualities, that they aren't any better than the diametrically opposed ideals of repression and tyranny championed by Kim Jong Il. I don't think it's controversial for the UN to champion, foster, and embrace the best parts of humanity, the most noble qualities we as humans (not just as members of any particular country) can achieve, or to make a statement that it holds these values in higher regard than oppression. Life and liberty are always going to be better than death and oppression. there are some times morals aren't relative; there are some beliefs that are better than others, that represent a more evolved frame of mind; ideals whose ends result in better outcomes than others. However, this stance confuses me too, because it's kind of like we'd be treating N Korea like some wayward child that needs our guidance, and to disrespect their sovereignty like that is counter to our founding principles (save the GW Bush references, I know we haven't always adhered to them), and run counter to my personal beliefs as somebody who does try to be the best person I can be and embrace the best parts of my nature. So, I find myself in a conundrum, a very slippery slope. I think we have an obligation to let the world know many of us believe in principles of equality, freedom, and democracy, and that we don't tolerate brutal regimes who murder their own people and create misery solely by existing. At the same time, it's hard to adopt this stance without the accompanying condescension implicit in "we know better than you; here's how to do things if you want to be our friend. You are a misbehaving child who needs our discipline." I disagree with that, too. How do we show the world we hold idealism in regard without heavy-handing our way into their way of life? How do we encourage them to embrace freedom, equality, and opportunity without judging them implicitly? It's just a really slippery slope. I'm just going to hope smarter people than I, smarter, well-intentioned people, can answer these questions.
The "Occupy Wall Street" movement, organized and funded by Adbusters, a Canadian leftist organization (huh?), is a fetid swamp of human trash, eager to steal rather than earn their keep. Possessing an irrational hatred of the wealthiest 1% of the population, most of whom earned their money through hard work, ingenuity, or a combination of both, they believe these people are to be exterminated and vilified rather than emulated or imitated. Why is that? Because hard work is involved. Today's generation of people, especially college aged and early 20somethings, have an entitlement mentality never before seen in any recent generation. The idea of industriousness has earned the ire of these losers, who went to college to pursue idiotic degrees such as Women's Studies or Gender Relations, then expressed surprise at their inability to acquire a high-paying job right at the outset. Forget the idea of entry-level work, forget the idea that during a recession/weak economy it might be necessary to lower your expectations and buckle down for a few years, forget the idea that it's possible to make your own opportunities when you're fortunate enough to live in America, just complain that your student loan debt isn't being paid off by somebody else's dollars and if you complain loudly enough, with enough other losers, and without taking a shower for enough days, maybe the mainstream media will embrace your movement in an attempt to distract people from the president's ever increasing embarrassments during a tenure highlighted by gross incompetency, greed, selfishness, arrogance, and loathing. In this regard, it's very easy to see similarities between those in the movement, and their party leaders.
The latest news coming out of San Diego's gay community is the lawsuit being filed against them by Target (the retailer). The pro gay-marriage group, Canvass for a Cause, has been picketing outside Target stores in response to the retailer's donation to a political candidate who is anti gay-marriage. Since the protestors were on private property, Target had them removed. A judge has ruled in Target's favor.
Typically, a furor has erupted in the wake of these events. The attorney for Canvass for a Cause is arguing that courts have traditionally held that the land outside department stores, retailers, etc., to be public domain, and that people have the right to assemble/free speech in public domain lands.
What do you think? Here is a link to the whole story.
Lost amidst all insider bickering, Haley Barbour question-dodging, press-banning and John Bolton sabre-rattling at the weekend California Republican convention was a bit of history:
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=85460#ixzz1HdcrRNcG
I am a Chicago native born in 1982. I am a graduate student in the Chicago area. I identify as a Republican, and I support the Tea Party movement. Above all I think now, more than ever the Republican party needs unity, cohesion and organization, to put aside arbitrary differences and get back to trying to make this the best America it can be, by espousing the values put forth by people like Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan.