Category Archives: Stupid liberal quote of the day

Romney’s “Lack of Specific Plans” or Romney The Man with A Plan

Recently I’ve been hearing from all sides things like, “Romney isn’t specific enough about what he’s going to do” “I don’t know what he would do in office” “He needs to be more clear about his plans” “he’s doing well for someone who hasn’t articulated a plan yet.”  I’ve heard it from the right, from the left, from the far right, from the far left, on Beck, on O’Reilly, on Blitzer, Maddow, Matthews, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, RealClearPolitics, DrudgeReport.  From pundits I love, from pundits I have no feelings about one way or another, from pundits I loathe with a fiery passion.  You name a media outlet I will show you someone who said Romney doesn’t have any specifics just vague generalities.

Are you people living in a goddamn cave? A sensory deprivation chamber?  The darkness of space, where no one can hear Mitt Romney’s extensive plans?

Ignoring that his speech can get pretty detailed…spoken words are imperfect…let’s look at the written record,

This man has more specific plans the media knows what do with. So rather than critique him on points, they just say he’s lacking specifics.

namely MittRomney.com.  Have you been to MittRomney.com, because it’s not your typical campaign website.  Typical campaign websites, even Obama’s, are a half-dozen or so issues, most of them covered by a paragraph or two with a general statement of goals, and maybe one or two pages with two or three more pages of detail for the really important things.

And then there is Mitt Romney.   This is the CEO of Bain.  The Savior of the Salt Lake Olympics.  The guy who balanced the Massachusetts’s budget without raising taxes. This is not only a guy who gets things done, he gets them done because he plans out what he is going to do.

And this kind of shows you why of the hundred deals Bain did, Obama can only find a few that were failures.  This man plans for EVERYTHING.

26 Topics!  And he didn’t just put a paragraph in each…no, I think he hired a Russian Novelist to fill these pages up.

This man covers every issues you could have questions about…

Let’s for instance go to the Jobs and Economic Growth page…

Not only does he have a link to a 5 page pdf that explains the 5 bills he will send to Congress on his first day and the 5 executive orders he will sign literally seconds after finishing the inaugural address (hell he might actually sign them during)

Screw the first 100 days, the first 100 hours is going to be productive under Romney.

How many Presidents do you know who has 5 bills and 5 executive orders ready to go day one?

But that’s not all…on that same page you have a link to the 160 page plan of Romney’s for the Economy called “Believe in America.”  Let me say that again 160 pages of details of what caused our problems, what Obama did wrong and pages 31-153 of how Romney is going to fix the problem.  And if you read it, it becomes pretty clear that this is the combined work of CEO’s and economists that know what they’re doing.   “But I don’t have time to read 120 pages of plans” bitch the same people who claim that he’s not specific.  Well lucky for you there is an Appendix of the 59 specific things he’s going to do.  But you don’t know what he’s going to do to you…he only gave you 59 specifics.

Yeah, after these 59 major things, I have no idea what Romney will do…

But it gets better.

Want to know about foreign policy?…well, where Obama’s got one page of vague generalities Romney’s got pages on every section of the world…

plus a page that lists ALL of Romney’s advisors on foreign policy and their qualifications.  I’ll admit I don’t know the names of most of these people…but from the lists of credentials and experience this is a who’s who of foreign policy experience.   Do you know who’s advising Obama…probably not, as he devotes only a page to economics and a page to defense.  Ooooh…two whole pages for the most important issues facing the nation at this point.
Romney also has an impressive list of judicial advisors… as opposed to the crack team of Obama’s that gave us Sotomayor and Kagan, possibly the two most incompetent justices in the history of the Court, save Earl Warren.

There are over 670 blog posts by Romney supporters and advisors, 30 articles written by Romney himself, nearly 800 press releases, and 32 video .  Yeah, that’s a real lack of information from Romney.

As for most of the other pages, they follow a pretty specific format.  They list basic principles, describe what Obama is doing wrong, and give SPECIFICS on what Romney will do.  Don’t believe me, go read for yourself.

I mean how can that compare to Obama’s eight whole issues (one of them a made up issue) with pages full of nothing…oh and there’s pandering to a lot of different minority groups.  They spend more time telling you about Michelle’s life than they do on how they’re going to fix the economy.  But remember it’s Romney who is short on specifics.  Oh, and Obama has a massive button that says “Espanol” (let’s forget that speaking fluent English is a requirement for naturalization…so exactly which legal voters aren’t speaking English?)  Clearly Romney is the candidate who is just dealing in platitudes and vagaries, changing his talking points with the wind.  Clearly.

So when you get a moment, drop by MittRomney.com and actually read some of the stuff there.  I know that sounds boring, but you really should.  Because if you do you will realize that not only is the comment that he doesn’t have specifics is insane as saying 2+2=5 (yes there are some lack of specifics where it comes to things that will actually be the purview of Congress to work out the details, but that would mean that Romney actually understands how laws are made, unlike Obama who thinks he rules by fiat).

Now, you can tell me that you don’t think Romney is being honest in what he says, you can tell me that you think his plans won’t work, but please stop this bullshit about him not having specifics.

5 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Taxes, Tea Party, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

A Week of Obama Peddling Lies. Part II:He also peddles slavery

Okay so we have already dealt with the fact that this week, as with every other week of his existence, Obama has clearly shown he knows nothing (possibly less than nothing) about economics.  But that’s not the worst part.  If it was just his idiocy I might not feel my blood pressure jump to unhealthy levels every time I’ve heard him speak this last week.  No the reason I’m insulted by Obama’s words is not his economic ignorance, but because it is a perverted and near evil vision of human nature and government.

So let’s review what he said.

Deep breaths.  He’ll be gone in January.  Deep breaths.

“In the United States of America, we are greater together than we are on our own.  This country advances when we keep that basic American promise — if you work hard, you can do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, put a little away for retirement.  And it doesn’t matter who you are, where you come from, what you look like.  That’s what has created this extraordinary country of ours.  That’s what we’re fighting for. That’s the choice in this election.”

First off there is no promise of success in America.  There is no promise of success in life.  There is only a promise of the right to “pursue happiness.”  But he is right that it is the choice of this election: whether you will have the opportunity to live, work hard and live the American dream (Romney) or whether your liberty, opportunity, choice are all eliminated for a generation or longer (Obama).

And he is also right about us being greater together than when we are on our own.  When we join together out of friendship, out of love, out of mutual consent and benefit, human beings, not just Americans, although we have at times mastered the art, we can reach unprecedented heights of achievement and happiness.  But this is when it is by mutual consent.  Not when it is forced on them by dictatorial fiat.  When people are forced to work together because a higher authority says they have to then you will find in terms of personal happiness and societal prosperity it would have been better for everyone to be on their own.  We rise only when we work together by choice…and the key part is the choice not the working together.

“Their philosophy is simple:  You are on your own.  You’re on your own.  If you are out of work, can’t find a job, tough luck, you’re on your own.  You don’t have health care, — that’s your problem — you’re on your own.  If you’re born into poverty, lift yourself up with your own bootstraps even if you don’t have boots.  You’re on your own.  They believe that’s their — that’s how American has advanced.  That’s the cramped, narrow conception they have of liberty.  And they are wrong.  They are wrong.”

It’s not a philosophy; it’s a fact of life.  You are and always will be a victim or benefactor of your choices.  And your choices are your own.  If you can’t work, can’t find a job, did you get the education, experience and recommendation that would put you in a safe position or did you expect Obama to provide for you…because if you did the later, let me tell you you’re on your own because Obama and the government can and never will be a trustworthy fall back.  You don’t have health care?  Again did you do everything to get it or did you expect others to just subsidize your life…because if you just expected others to provide you with everything you want, you’re on your own.  We believe that America has advanced because of talent and skill and drive and friendship…and keep in mind friendship and companionship is a major portion of life…but in that too you’re on your own to make friends who will be there for you, they cannot just be provided by government fiat.  Ours is a philosophy of liberty.  Obama you claim that we have a “cramped, narrow conception [of] liberty.  And they are wrong.” No ours is philosophy of wide ranging liberty that comes with the downside of liberty, the possibility of failure.  But we have a strong belief that even in failure people can learn and grow and better themselves.  You would rather eliminate liberty, eliminate the possibility of failure and replace it with the at best the certainty of mediocrity (in reality the certainty of failure and misery for all in the long run) because you don’t believe people can better themselves, you don’t believe people can bring themselves up by their bootstraps, even if they don’t have any, then you don’t believe in human potential.  You don’t’ think that success or failure is, in the end a result of one’s choices and attitudes, which it is, you believe that we are victims of society, victims of the system, victims of those in power, your mantra is “I am not the master of my fate, the government is the captain of my soul.”  And you have the unmitigated gall to call us cramped and narrow.

“And we’ve got to make sure that we’ve got a tax system that is actually fair.  Part of that is something I call the Buffett Rule.  It’s very simple:  If you are making more than $1 million a year — I’m not saying you have $1 million, I’m saying you’re making $1 million every year — then you shouldn’t pay a lower rate than your secretary.  That’s a pretty simple proposition.”

I dealt with why this was a bad pragmatic plan last time. Let’s talk about the principled reasons why this is dumb.  “Fair.”  Let’s make the tax code fair.  Children, whiny, spoiled children whine about “fair”—adults talk about justice.  What is justice? Well the simplest definition would be that everyone gets what they deserve.  So is the tax code just?  Nope. There are far too many loopholes and deductions where the government quite unjustly tries to pick winners and losers, and the taxes are too high.  It’s a double injustice.  Now if you wanted to talk about justice instead of fairness you would get rid of the loopholes and lower the rates (although true justice would require that everyone pays at least something as everyone benefits from government protections of a military, police and court system).  Raising the rate on people because they’ve done well isn’t just, it’s punishing success (but liberals don’t believe money is made through skill and drive but because of corruption in despite of all knowledge of human nature and history).  But if you really wanted justice and not just a whine of fair you would support the Ryan Plan.  Hell, since, as Ryan has put out numerous times, it’s up the Ways and Means Committee to decide the future of loopholes…how about eliminating all deductions after $200,000…and reduce them for income after $100,000.  Republicans would support that. Because it’s just or at least more just than what we have now.  But raising rates isn’t just…it’s not even fair as you’re talking about raising rates on capital gains (money that derives from income which has already been taxed, and then invested in companies which also pay corporate taxes, so yes let’s tax it a third time…and if you buy anything with it we’ll slap some sales tax on that too…oh yeah that’s fair).  But please continue whining about fair.

Of course Obama then makes it seem that letting people keep their money is stealing from veterans, letting people freeze to death (“Or a family that’s struggling to get by maybe is getting less home heating oil assistance.”), old people’s healthcare…along with unconstitutional payments for student loans. As if taxing is the only option, rather than smart cuts, intelligent regulation, efficiency, reduction of waste, and turning programs over to the states.  No, Obama has only a vision of tax or no tax.  No other option is available because he isn’t even concerned with justice or fairness.

And then we get to the all important (read horrific) passage:

I hear politicians talking about values in an election year.  I hear a lot about that.  Let me tell you about values.  Hard work, personal responsibility — those are values.   But looking out for one another — that’s a value.  The idea that we’re all in this together — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper — that’s a value.  The idea that we think about the next generation and we’re taking care of our planet — that’s a value.

By value I can only assume he means the complete lack of sane human values.  Let’s ignore the bizarre choice of paraphrasing a Biblical murderer (we could spend days talking about the odd choice of quotes, but a Pagan like me commenting on Biblical quotes is a little odd).  First off looking out for one another might be personal value but compassion being a beautiful thing between individuals does not mean that it should or even can be transferred to the government.  But it’s not even that, Obama’s disgusting vision is that we help those who want to lie around and do nothing but get paid and work to destroy everything we believe in (like his unwavering support for the teacher’s unions or the billion and one-half dollars he wants to give to the Muslim Brotherhood, which by any sane administration would be declared a terrorist organization).  But then of course he uses the quote “I am my brother’s keeper.”  Do you know what needs keepers?  Inanimate property, animals, and slaves.  I, and every person on this planet are human beings—with the exception of small children and those with serious mental problems we don’t need keepers.  Keepers are for slaves, to tell you what you can and cannot buy (which I believe the Obama administration said it has the right to do), to tell you when and where you can go (which the Obama administration tried to do through it’s rewrite of NDAA) and what you can and cannot see (which the Obama administration tried to do with SOPA).

The fact of the matter is that this is only Obama getting lazy and showing his true colors.  I’m sorry but in the context of every power grab this man has made I can’t just think that this is a poor choice of words.  This is a man who believes that he and his fellow government bureaucrats need to be our keepers and keep us in line.  This speech makes clear that his idea of liberty is straight out 1984 that “slavery is liberty” and that we will only be happy and productive little kept people when we are under his control.  Nothing he has said or done give me any reason to believe that I should give him the benefit of the doubt here.  When he says keeper he means it.  He means that he thinks that we need to sacrifice our lives and our liberties to take care of each other.  He views what most of us would consider the sickest of dystopias as his utopia.

I’m not going to call for anything here.  There’s no need.  If he and his team keep acting like they have done this past week, they will be powerless as of November and gone by January.  However, just because I don’t fear anything this man can do doesn’t change the fact that evil needs to be called what it is.  I know my blog won’t exactly convince anyone on the left, but for my readers, who probably don’t take as hard-line a view in their rhetoric, when you’re talking to people keep this evil in mind.  Keep in mind he is opposed to the basic concept of liberty at all levels, and while maybe with a little more finesse than I am demonstrating, point it out to the people you talk to.  The problem isn’t Obama, the problem is this belief that life is made better only through government and control.

2 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day–Palin doesn’t know what government is for

What to hit.  Obama’s economic plan will take a few blogs to tear apart, so we’ll wait for this next week for that one (or three).  Well I could do a little more destruction of Ricky’s concession speech (but John Stewart did such a good job, any further words on my part would be overkill) so instead I will turn to my least favorite liberal: Sarah Palin.  She’s probably my least favorite because she trots out trite liberal populism and then gets conservatives blamed for her idiocy.  If I was a conspiracy theorist I might have Manchurian Candidate statements here, but frankly the left isn’t that bright (which is also the main reason why this birther shit is nonsense, they don’t have the brains to organize a conspiracy of that level).

No clue as to what Conservative actually means...

When praising Allen West as a possible VP pick for Romney (and anyone liberal Sarah backs I have serious doubts about):

“[He] understands the Constitution, and wants to put government back on the side of the people.”

And this line makes me want to scream.  How does anyone think this woman is conservative?  Let’s ignore the bridge to nowhere.  The taxpayer money to pay for her TV show.  The fact that in her debate with Biden her grand solution to fixing education was just to throw more money at it.  (You really have to give the left credit here, intentionally or more likely accidentally by repeatedly attacking Palin they have caused the knee jerk right to waste time and resources in defense of a person whom we should be absolutely condemning).  And let’s really forget that she endorsed uber-liberal the corrupt John McCain for the U.S. Senate (yes I know everyone forgets McCain’s scandals from the late 80’s but this man sells his votes for cash like he was Rick Santorum).  But most of all she doesn’t understand what a conservative believes is the purpose of government.

Government is there to protect our rights from those who use force (Police, criminal courts, prisons, military).  Government is there to provide rules and regulations in systems that cannot come up with them for themselves (rules of the road, weights and measures, printing money, contract and tort law, etc.).  Government is there to provide an impartial system to work out arguments (Civil court).  And on very rare occasions it is there for large scale infrastructure creation that cannot be created without a central authority (the interstate highway system…private companies however can often take over after the initial creation).  Notice what it’s not?  It’s not on your side.  It’s not there for you.

It’s a necessary evil that ideally should do as little as possible to maintain a system that allows you to pursue Happiness (failure or success is up to you).

Contrary to Lincoln’s overstepping rewrite of the Declaration, government is of and by the people, but not for the people.  Government isn’t supposed to be for you.  It’s supposed to be against those who would do harm and a neutral arbiter but never for anyone.  Government for the people always leads to giving and helping with the best of intentions, but paves a road of corruption, inefficiency and destruction.

Now to be fair maybe Sarah chose her words poorly, as I’m sure most people do not make the hair splitting distinction between a government that protects your liberties and a government that is for you.  But this is not the time to get slipshod in our wording (as Sarah’s always is).  This is not 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 or 2008 (otherwise known as a battle between big government Tweedle-dee and big government Tweedle-dumb, although 2008 was actually between big government Tweedle-dumb and big government Tweedle-dumber).  This is 2012.  We actually have a candidate who not only preaches lower taxes, small government, closing loopholes, less regulation, efficiency and less spending, we have a guy who actually has done what he’s talking about.  For the first time in almost 30 years we actually have a true contest of ideas a contest between big government and small government—between government for the people and a government of laws and limits.    This is not the time for Sarah’s mindless demagogic drivel…

Sarah, you’re a liberal and a hack—shut up.  Your platitudes have no place here.

What we need is more of this…

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day

Annoy a liberal…the first in a ongoing series

This was just going to be a stupid quote of the day…but I realized I could do something more with it. So I’ve decided to start a list of things anyone can do to annoy liberals.  Why?  Because it’s fun.  This will be an ongoing series.

So a about a week ago a friend of mine posted on Facebook the latest Katy Perry music video.  I will admit that my musical tastes have always been a bit behind the times…but I found it enjoyable.


To me it struck me as a little odd that the military would be helping in what comes off a recruitment video while Obama is publicly saying he’s going to try and slash the budget to reduce the military to what would be an anemic level.  I thought that since the military brass probably had some inkling that his proposed cuts were coming then the generous level of help in this video was a not so subtle cue to Obama that it is our troops not drones and computers that make this the best fighting force in the world (but Obama would have to live in reality to realize that)…it also comes off as a bit of slap to people like Rick Santorum who think women have no place in the military and should just stay home barefoot and pregnant (I still say Santorum should try that line about women not being fit for combat to the face of any armed female member of the military and see how long he lasts).

But where I found something to like in this video…so much so that despite never having listened to anything else by Perry (at least not intentionally) I bought it because there is simply not enough being put out there that shows the members of the armed services as the badasses that they are.

But apparently I forgot how much liberals hate heroes and people who do what is right.

Enter liberal Naomi Wolf, liberal feminist (as opposed to a sane feminist who just believes that men and women should be equals) felt the need to make this useless point:

“I really want to find out if she was paid by them for making it . . . it is truly shameful. I would suggest a boycott of this singer whom I really liked — if you are as offended at this glorification of violence as I am.”

First it seems she thinks that the only reason people would choose to show the military in a positive light is because they’re being paid to…and not because, well, they live in reality.  I don’t know about the rest of you, but I wanted to be in the military, I couldn’t pass the physicals, but I wanted to be in the military and admire to no end those who did what I could not.  And I simply cannot understand the mindset of someone who does not find it honorable that someone chooses to put their life on the line to defend the rights of another.  And then she simply equates the military with violence.  Actually, idiot, the military is what protects us from violence, but I shouldn’t expect intelligence like that from a liberal.  Quite frankly Wolf’s outlook is just a little sick and perverted and just a bit dishonorable.

So, in order to annoy a liberal like Wolf and her ilk, if you like the song, I would suggest you go and buy a copy and then send her a “thank you for the recommendation” message…her contact information is here. Remember to be polite and just thank her for bringing this great music video to your attention.  The more polite and nice you are, the more it will drive her nuts.

2 Comments

Filed under People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day

Ayatollah Rick Santorum’s war against filthy non-Christians

“And then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man. If you can do one, you can do the other. Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we’ll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!” –Henry Drummond Inherit the Wind

Okay the title is intentionally hyperbolic…but I had to get your attention somehow.

But, frighteningly, it’s only mildly hyperbolic.

So over the weekend, after making us all wish we could burn out our eyes with images of his flabby form, Rick attended a rally and was introduced by pastor Dennis Terry in, what has to be the most surreal speech I have ever seen given to introduce a Presidential candidate.

“I don’t care what the liberals say, I don’t care what the naysayers say, this country was founded as a Christian nation, The god of Abraham, the god of Isaac. There’s only one god, there’s only one god and his name is Jesus.”

“I’m, listen to me, if you don’t believe as I say you don’t love America and you don’t like the way we tell you to do things, I’ve got one thing to say. GET OUT.

“We don’t worship Buddha. I said we don’t worship Buddha. We don’t worship Mohammed. We don’t worship Allah. We worship god. We worship god’s son Jesus Christ. “[emphasis added]

I’m just really shocked to hear Rick Santorum, a man who implied that all Protestants are in league with the devil, endorsing something like this. Now in his defense, Rick, possibly my least favorite bigot in the nation right now, has said he is not responsible for what other people say but (1) you are responsible when they’re introducing you, and (2) you are clearly clapping in the video and not hanging your head, shaking it thinking “dear god what have I gotten myself into”…you know as any sane human would be doing at that point. So your defense, Ricky, is nothing but the usual bunch of lies…which is really all you have. I really don’t know which I hate more your bleeding heart liberal economics or your psychotic religious beliefs, Rick, but you are clearly the worst of all possible combinations of positions.

So let’s start with the words that Rick Santorum clearly agrees with, the words that clearly advocate for a single minded intolerant theocracy. The words that are bigoted, close-minded, and let’s not forget vaguely anti-Semitic (which means Romney might not have Ron Paul as his VP, but Rick might).

“I’m, listen to me, if you don’t believe as I say you don’t love America and you don’t like the way we tell you to do things, I’ve got one thing to say. GET OUT.”

You know if this had been followed by a statement of we do things here by civil and uncivil discourse…debate, discourse, and screaming our bloody heads off with insults…but not with violence and not with mob behavior then the call to get out might have been okay. If that statement had been followed by a condemnation of terrorism and violence and if you embrace those things you have no business in this country, that might have been appropriately hyperbolic. But what was it followed by “We don’t worship Buddha.” That’s right because the eightfold path is just such a Satanic way…and let’s just ignore the fact that Buddhist don’t actually worship Buddha, it’s more of the relationship between Catholics and saints in their relationship, calling on for help and guidance but not actually worshipping. No let’s just say that all other religions are not welcomed in the U.S. Yes because a nation which has a Constitutional law guaranteeing the freedom of religion is going to ban all religions other than Christianity. As a pagan I feel so comfortable about a Rick Santorum presidency. Because I remember all those sermons Jesus preached against Roman gods (you remember how he told the pagan Roman guard to go fuck himself when the guard pleaded for his servant, don’t you?), and the Jewish god, and all those sermons where he told the Jews that they must worship him and him alone. I clearly remember them in the Book of…the book of…chapter….oh well I’m sure they’re in there. After all Santorum and pastor Terry wouldn’t be basing their beliefs on only their small-minded ignorant prejudices, there must be scriptural backing for it. Just poor pagan me who has read the Bible several times must be forgetting those passages where Jesus told you to hate all who had different religious opinions…like that time when he told his followers to despise the group the ancient Jews had the most theological disagreements with, the Samaritans. There certainly must be a story in the Bible where he tells his followers to treat Samaritans as outsiders and others who deserve nothing but hatred. I’m sure of it.

But let’s move on.

“I don’t care what the naysayers say, this country was founded as a Christian nation.”

Really? Let’s look at the Founding. You know the Declaration of Independence. Written by Deist Thomas Jefferson, you know the guy who thought so highly of the Bible he felt it could use a little editing (down to about 20 pages) to get rid of all the useless stuff. But I’m sure a semi-educated response would respond that in reality the Declaration, while penned by Jefferson was the result of heavy discussion and editing by a committee of five people. Roger Sherman, Philip Livingston, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams. Now Livingston, a Presbyterian, and Sheramn, a Congregationalist were clearly Christians…but Franklin, a Deist, and Adams, a Unitarian, the two who probably had the most influence on the document, both doubted the divinity of Christ (Adams even signing a treaty stating “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” that the Senate confirmed, that would be the 6th Senate still filled with many Founders…the same treaty Tripoli later broke and was used as the justification for Jefferson’s preemptive strike against the Barbary Pirates). Now while they may have doubted the divinity of Christ they did not doubt the necessity of both religion and spirituality but were not so close minded as to believe only one version of religion was all that should be allowed.

But it was only these three guys right? Well no. President of the Continental Congress (and first president under the Articles of Confederation) John Hancock and General and First President George Washington were both Freemasons…which means that while they may have been Episcopalians they would also not be restricted by any close-minded view that only their religion counted. If such a view was abhorrent to the Founding Fathers, one wonders why twice they would put their first president under two constitutions as a man who believed in the truth of all religions. (Oh, Chief Justice John Marshall, whose influence in creating a capitalistic system of laws cannot be overstated, was also a Freemason, but I’m sure the Senate, filled with Founding Fathers was opposed to such open minded beliefs when they confirmed him).

Were the majority of them Christian? Certainly. But none of them were the close-minded bigots that pastor Dennis Terry and Rick Santorum (D) have shown themselves to be. They believed in God back in those days, and weren’t all that particular about the name or the form of worship you had back then.

“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”—Thomas Jefferson…I’m sure Jefferson was advocating for only a Christian nation where there is only one God with that line.

But I’m sure they would have all supported the small minded nature of demanding all non-Christians leave America because, clearly, they have no place here. And I’m sure after pagans and Jews and non-believers are either deported or solved through some other kind of solution with a certain finality to it, that Mormons and Catholics and Episcopalians are next. Then I’m sure other Protestant denominations need to go. I’m sure that is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the First Amendment and state bills guaranteeing freedom of religion. Well I’m not sure of it, but I think Rick Santorum is.

We could go over the rest of this lunatic’s speech. I could tear every single phrase apart and show him to beyond the shadow of a doubt a psychopathic, vicious, evil and ignorant man whose vile knows no conscience, humanity or intelligence until you would be convinced that clearly Sherman didn’t go far enough on his march to the sea if it lead to even a minority in the South that behaved like this. I could, but what’s the point.

…..

Oh, and if you don’t believe that Rick is guided a little too heavily by religion, then listen to this little quote where he basically claims that God himself speaks to Rick Santorum.

“I don’t believe life begins at conception, I know life begins at conception.”

 

Whenever anyone claims to know something that can only be known to God…they’re either a prophet or a psychopath. Let’s guess which one Rick Santorum is.

2 Comments

Filed under Death, Election 2012, Faith, Fear, Founding, Free Will, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Religion, Rick Santorum, Spirituality, Stupid liberal quote of the day

Stupid quote of the day…Rick Santorum’s bad math

In an article entitled Santorum: I’ll beat Romney if Gingrich drops out it was pointed out that Santorum suggested that he would be winning if it weren’t for Newt.

“It’s always harder when you’ve got two conservatives running in the race as we have seen in Washington and we’ve seen in other states,” Santorum said on Fox News Sunday. “We have the anti-Romney vote, if you will. Both Gingrich and I are slugging away.”

I’ve got numerous issues with this statement, but let’s deal with just the math first. For the moment let’s ignore the fact that when a candidate drops out their vote splits and never does 100% of their supporters go to one candidate and one candidate only. (Romney and Santorum both benefited after Bachmann dropped, Romney and Gingrich went up after Huntsman dropped, Gingrich and Santorum went up after Perry dropped…nobody gets all the voters when a candidate drops)…but let’s ignore that fact of reality for just a moment to give Rick the best shot possible.

Last night’s numbers for the Washington Caucus were as follows:

The only conservative in the race. The only one who can win the nomination. The only one who can beat Obama.

Romney 37.6%

Paul 24.8%

Santorum 23.8%

Gingrich 10.3%

Last time I checked 37.6% is more than 35.1%…but Santorum math is special math, much like all of Santorum’s short-bus style statements.

But maybe Washington is just the outlier. (Santorum hopes it’s the outlier because otherwise he lost to Ron Paul, how pathetic).

Okay, but apparently he says that if Newt had dropped out before Michigan he would have won Michigan.

How about before the Romney Michigan bounce…Let’s look at Arizona.

Final Numbers

Romney 47.1%

Santorum 26.8%

Gingrich 16.0%

Paul 8.6%

Nope 47.1% still beats 42.8%.

Okay, let’s go to Michigan itself.

Final numbers

Romney 41.1%

Santorum 37.9%

Paul 11.6%

Gingrich 6.5%

Okay so if ALL of the Gingrich voters went for Santorum in Michigan then Santorum would have won by 3.3 points. But let’s take a look at that and apply reality. First of all we know that 9% of the total vote that went for Santorum was Democrats trying to throw the race. So no matter how you want to look at this Romney still beats Santorum among Republicans in a Republican primary. That’s just a fact.

But let’s talk about something else. When a candidate drops out never in history have ALL of their voters gone for one candidate over another. They split. Each candidate always gets a little boost and then more often, especially in this race, people are going to stay home and just wait for the end when they can vote for any Republican against Obama. So, and I realize this is speculation, but I think these are safe numbers, of the 6.5% that voted for Newt, 1% would have stayed home (Santorum’s lead is now only 2.3%), 1% would have voted for Paul ( lead of 1.3%) and 1% would hate Santorum’s religious rhetoric so much they would even vote for Romney rather than see the fundamentalist freak show get it (so that’s +1 Romney, -1 Santorum…or Romney wins by .7%). So even with cheating by throwing in with the Democrats AND Newt dropping out, Santorum still couldn’t win.

But how about if we turn to the national polls?

What is the poll that is most consistently accurate when you compare their last pre-election poll to final results. I would say that in previous years that has always been Rasmussen (probably because of large sample size and looking at likely voters not just registered voters). So what does the most recent numbers from Scott Rasmussen have to say?

Romney 40%

Santorum 24%

Gingrich 16%

Paul 12%

Wow Rick Ties with 40% to 40%…oh but wait if even 1% of them goes to Romney, Paul, or stays home…Rick loses again. Rick always looses.  Because Rick is a loser.

To quote Despair.com: Those who win never quit, those who quit never win...but those who never quit and never win are idiots.

But beside the fact that there is literally no way for Santorum to win this (Santorum may “win” a few states on Super Tuesday, but all of those are proportional delegate distributions, so he will gain absolutely no delegate advantage there, and Santorum isn’t even up for a lot of delegates in Ohio or any of them in Virginia due to the fact that he is a terrible executive and can’t manage a campaign)

But let’s deal with the more egregious thing he said:

“It’s always harder when you’ve got two conservatives running in the race as we have seen in Washington and we’ve seen in other states,”

Two conservative? Where? I see Romney a pro-business, small government, pro-capitalism, state’s rights conservative who did the best he could in a highly liberal state and held the line keeping the private sector of health insurance alive against the liberals who just wanted to nationalize it (is nationalize the term for a government take over of a private industry when it’s only a state?). Then I see Santorum who is pro-union and never met a spending increase he didn’t like, who has repeatedly voted for the growth of government power and never for state’s rights and every chance he gets he can’t lavish enough praise and admiration for his communist grandfather. No conservative there. And I see Newt who, while infinitely more conservative than the socialist that is Santorum, he has also on repeated occasion voted for and advocated for the expansion of government power. So really Rick, where are these two conservatives? The only conservatives who have been in this race are Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann (and maybe Herman Cain, but I was always too shaky on his foreign policy to say that he was really a conservative). I am getting tired of this man lying about being a conservative and no one calling him on it. Economically he is as bleeding heart and big government as it gets. And given that his low opinion of women is more in line with Israel’s enemies than with Israel I worry about his foreign policy conservative credentials as well. He is opposed to the liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the Declaration and the limited government of the Constitution. He is not a conservative.

1 Comment

Filed under Economics, Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics, Rick Santorum, Stupid liberal quote of the day

Stupid quote of the day…Santorum again…

Before I put the quote up, let me say that yes I know this is a gaffe–I know what he’s trying to say, I know he’s saying we should always have  system of meritocracy where people have the ability to rise and fall based on their effort, achievement and will.  He says as much himself if you follow the link there is a nice video with his whole statement.  I agree  that going to some kind of socialist state where everyone would be the death knell for this nation.

However, if Romney had said this it would be the top story on every news outlet on Earth.  And this is further proof that the media is working to make sure that Santorum is the candidate, because unlike Romney, he can easily be destroyed in the general election.

Okay, here’s the quote

“There is income inequality in America, there always has been, and hopefully, and I do say that,  there always will be.”

Rick, please, stop trying to defend capitalism.  You’re no good at it.  Probably because capitalism requires a belief in individual freedom and individual happiness which we all know you’re opposed to.  You’re just not qualified to talk about a philosophy that is at odds with your core values of collectivism and subservience/submission to a higher power.

But let’s talk about the truly stupid part of that statement is.  “Hopefully[,] there always will be [income inequality].”  Uh….No.  Hopefully there will always be capitalism, free trade and meritocracy.  But if by some miracle of miracles we had a whole generation of Teslsas, Da Vincis, Lorenzo D’Medicis, J.P. Morgans, Vanderbilts, Rockerfellers, Carnegies, and Jobses that would be awesome!  Think of it a whole world of exceptional people, each exceptional in their own way, but a whole collective society of makers, doers, and thinkers.  F!@#ing Awesome!  Ayn Rand’s Galt’s Gulch on a global scale!  There wouldn’t be much income inequality because everyone would have earned everything they wanted! And I’m not the first one to think about that…

Let me quote to you from the first book of Aristotle’s Politics, where right after he comes off a discussion of the greatest income inequality in the ancient world (the difference between masters and slaves) he envision the possibility that everyone could be essentially equal in terms of wealth, everyone their own master…he states:

“For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which says the poet, “of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods;” if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre, chief workmen not want servants, nor masters slaves.” (1253a34)

Over 2,000 years ago Aristotle could imagine the idea that technology reach a level were all the necessities of life could be automated and everyone by nature make equal and their own master.  So, while I understand what he was trying to say and agree with Rick that capitalism should always continue, I would, like Aristotle, love to see a world where everyone has earned equality of wealth.  I’m not quite delusional enough to think it’s going to happen, I know I will never live to see it, but it’s a nice little hope that one day humanity could evolve to that level.

But again the main purpose of this is the fact that I doubt you will see all the major outlets for news rip Santorum a new one over this.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aristotle, Capitalism, Economics, Rick Santorum, Stupid liberal quote of the day

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…when liberals tell the truth…

Chris Matthews had an interesting quote…

“Steve Schmidt, my friend, you talk to a lot of Republicans out there. Are they aware that the media is basically rooting for Santorum out of sheer fear of the ennui, the boredom that will set in if it looks like Romney locks this thing up? At the moment he locks this thing up we face a long, dull summer of Mitt Romney.”

Yes, yes the media is rooting for him. How do I know? Because unlike Romney, who they’re insulting on a daily basis, they’re treating Santorum like he’s a Democrat and not vetting hit at all. Of course it’s kind of easy to make that mistake. I mean with the earmarks,  the peddling influence, the corruption, the being in bed with unions and PETA, the not supporting troops, the hatred of women…I can see where you might mistake him for a liberal.  Easily mistake him for a liberal.  In fact if a story comes out showing him in bed with ACORN I’m not going to be surprised.

But they’re not telling you how much they seem to love Santorum.  Let’s be honest here we know that Media Matters (you know that really sane organization), Alexrod, Soros and now Krugman have all come out against Romney, saying he’s weak, saying he’s liberal saying that he is not a threat.  Why would Democrats come out and say this during a primary.  After all if you had a weak candidate in the lead the last thing liberals would do is come out and say how weak he is as that might hurt him and put a stronger candidate in place….oh wait!  It’s because Santorum will be so easy to beat that they want Santorum to be the nominee.  Duh!  Yet someone how Santorum supporters don’t seem to get this.  The Left is hitting Romney and leaving Santorum alone because Santorum is the weaker candidate.  He’s the candidate that will scare the middle…why?  Because while the middle hates Obama’s mandates forcing religious people to go against their principles and give out contraceptives, they’ll hate Santorum’s desire to ban contraceptives altogether even more.  Much more…whereas Romney is going to take the middle ground and not force anyone to not do anything they don’t want to do.

They know that Romney speaking passionately and knowledgeably about the Founders and quoting from them directly is much more of a danger than Santorum talking about his wacky idea that the Founders didn’t believe in personal happiness.

Matthews is right, the media and Left want Santorum because it will guarantee an Obama victory.  And I don’t know if he’s dumb for admitting this, or just accurately confident that Santorum voters (who repeat the McCain and Mainstream Media lie that Romney isn’t conservative, and make no mistake it is a lie, a big one) won’t be clever enough to see that they’re being played.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, liberal arrogance, Mitt Romney, Obama, Paul Krugman is an idiot, politics, Rick Santorum, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Unions

Stupid Liberal Quote of the day…Obama the Zen Master

It was a dull day and I was worried that I wouldn’t have a stupid quote of the day (because I just go off what is one the headlines I never bother to actually search for one…liberals are so helpful in usually providing idiotic pronouncements)…but luckily I found this…

I couldn’t cut the deficit in half “because this recession turned out to be deeper than any of us realized.”

Huh?

I couldn’t do something that would improve the economy because the economy was in a bad shape.

I couldn’t give him a blood transfusion because he had already lost a pint of blood. I couldn’t teach him how to read because no one had ever bothered to send him to school before me. I couldn’t help you because you needed help.

Is it a Zen koan or is it just the sound of an idiot falling on his own ignorance of economics with everybody around to hear?

I wonder what branches of the government he run as fiat by koan?

What is the sound of one idiot speaking?

2 Comments

Filed under Obama, Stupid liberal quote of the day

Stupid liberal quote of the day…Obama Budget Defense

“There’s pretty broad agreement that the time for austerity is not today” –White House Chief of Staff, Jack Lew defending this abysmal mess of a budget.

(By broad agreement he means Obama, Soros and that mentally retarded jackass at the New York Times, Paul Krugman…anyone who actually has a functioning brain was not included in “pretty broad agreement.”  In the real world I think there is pretty broad agreement Obama is out of his gourd.   )
15 Trillion dollars in debt already. A massively growing size of the government. The continued and destructive intrusions on the free market. The ever expanding entitlement state. (Do you think at the point that the government is attacking the Amish for selling milk it might have become too big)
Among other things it would include $800 Million for countries that were involved in the Arab Spring. Remind me which of those nations is not right now controlled by Islamists who are hell bent on destroying Israel and the U.S.? Name one, I dare you. I love that my tax money is going to support these butchers.

“It would take the economy in the wrong way” if we implemented austerity. Which wrong way would that be? Would that be the way where we stop picking winners and losers (usually making the losers temporary winners, but ending up with everyone being a loser) and allow the fundamentals and groundwork for lasting economic growth be created? Would that be the way where people are not dependant on the government for their existence. Would that be the way of prosperity, of freedom, of choice, of liberty and limited government?  Nope can’t have that.

My favorite part is this statement from center-left organization Politico: “But Obama would also go outside the box by creating new mandatory spending initiatives costing tens of billions of dollars and for the first time, openly tap war savings to fund his domestic agenda.” Even the left can’t deny what a boondoggle this pile of shit is.

And this is not the time for austerity?
In the Obama world no day is ever the day for austerity because there should be no limit to the size, power and extend of the government…not until the Ministry of Peace, Ministry of Plenty, Ministry of Love and Ministry of Truth have been fully established. Remember the Obama mantra “Ignorance is strength” “Freedom is slavery.”*

Meanwhile in the real world, every day since the 1990’s has been a day for austerity and every day we have not instituted it has been a failure and disgrace.

*And before you ask, no I do not think 1984 references are uncalled for here given the insanity of increased government spending at this point.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Obama Ceasar, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation, Welfare

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…

The media wants to focus on his statement that “One of the things about being president is you get better as time goes on[.]” Which means that in six to seven terms he might know his ass from a hole in the ground.  But there was actually a far dumber quote given in Obama’s recent interview.

“Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes.”

You have to love the “it turns out” part, translation, “I’d never read the damn thing because I never thought it was important, still really don’t.”  It turn out?  Basic high school government class would teach you that the system was designed to limit power…how exactly does a Constitutional attorney not know this.  Really makes you wonder what those college transcripts would show.

But then there is the “more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes” part.  Translation:   “I hate the fact that the public doesn’t like my ideas and voted in a Republican House for express intent of stopping me from doing whatever I want.  Don’t they know I’m smart and they’re dumb and they should simply do whatever I want whenever I want.” All hail Obama Caesar!

I still haven’t figured out if this man is more arrogant than he is stupid or more stupid than he  is arrogant…but either way, I hope he keeps talking as every time he opens his mouth it’s like a massive donation to the Romney 2012 campaign.

Leave a comment

Filed under Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Obama, Obama Ceasar, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Tyranny

Stupid liberal quote of the day…shocker, it’s from Newt.

I keep looking for a Democrat to hit on the stupid liberal quote of the day…but the fact is that their statements are too dumb to even respond to…

 

…take this one from Krugman responding to Romney’s statement about his chief concern not being the very poor:

“As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has documented, between 90 percent and 99 percent of the dollars allocated to safety-net programs do, in fact, reach the beneficiaries.”

Because I always quote Soros funded think-tanks that only Krugman would consider valid to back up statements so preposterousthere are not enough hallucinogenics in the world to make that sound even kind-a-sort-a true.  Honestly who believes that anything the government does only has a 10% overhead?  The rest of it gets even funnier.  But it’s just too easy to pick on a pathological liar and mentally retarded twit like Krugman.  (Last week he claimed that Britain’s cradle to grave socialism is an example of why austerity measures don’t work.)  But you would expect an economist of Krugman’s caliber to be one of the most recognizable faces at a paper that reported a 40 Million Dollar loss last year.  Truly they understand economics at the paper of record.

 

But the fact is that as long as Newt is around even Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, Paul Krugman, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barrack Obama will probably have to take a back seat to making the dumbest liberal statement on any given day.

 

What did Newt say today?

 

“What the poor need is a trampoline so they can spring up,” he said. “So I want to replace a safety net with a trampoline.”

 

 

Dear god in heaven, how did we ever let a man this dumb get this far?

 

Let me explain where the safety net comes from in the wider allegory of capitalism.  Capitalism is an economic system where by you get out of it what you put into it (in terms of education, work-ethic, merit, and skill) so it has often been compared to climbing a ladder, the more effort you put into it the more you get out of it.  But at the highest levels there is a certain amount of risk that your ideas will fail and you will lose what you have—implicitly, although seldom stated, these higher levels are like a series of high wires that one has to try to walk across…and if you fall some will be able to hold onto the wire and regain their balance…and some will not.  As with sane high wire acts there is a safety net to catch you, reduce the force of the fall, and let you get back on your feet so you can begin re-climbing the ladder and get back up on the high wire again, this time wiser and more surefooted (in capitalism this is welfare, education programs, unemployment, housing, medical entitlement programs we already have to protect those in the most destitute positions).  Now as a caller on the Laura Ingram show this morning stated, a lot are treating the safety net as a safety hammock…because human beings are infinitely capable of being lazy.  That is why you have to make sure the net is not larger than it needs be, that is has limits and responsibilities.  This was the main push of welfare reform in the 1990’s, the same kind of reform that we need now…the kind of reform Romney is talking about but Newt seems to think is unfair because we need to be concerned about the very poor.  I can’t remember, who was the champion of the kind of welfare reform Romney is talking about in the ‘90’s?…well whoever it is I’m sure Newt opposed them back then too and called them heartless as well.

 

But let’s put in Newt’s idea of a trampoline into the metaphor instead of a safety net.  Okay, first off has anyone ever seen how a safety net works and how the physics operate? When you hit a safety net after falling, the energy from your fall is both distributed across the entire net and when the energy pushes back up (every action has an opposite reaction) it is enough energy to only throw you up a few feet instead of breaking every bone in your body.  Ever look at the physics of a trampoline? When you hit a trampoline after jumping on it, the energy from your fall is both disturbed across the entire trampoline and when the energy pushes back up (every action has an opposite reaction) it is enough energy to only throw you up a few feet instead of breaking every bone in your body.  Gee that sounds repetitive.  The only difference is that you intentionally try to hit the trampoline with as much force as possible to get the biggest kick back…but if you dropped onto a trampoline from 20 feet (and didn’t die, because falling on a trampoline from any height is generally a death sentence, unlike a safety net) it wouldn’t throw you up into the air 20 feet, you’ll always come up lower than where you started.  (Do not make me go into the calculus necessary to prove that!)  Since the two operate on the same principle it would be kind of like saying “I don’t need a cup I need a glass.  The poor don’t need income they need money.  You don’t need protection, you need safety.”  Yeah, there might be cases where that hair splitting might be needed, but not in this case.

 

But let’s go with Newt’s idea of a trampoline that takes you back to the place you were at when you fell, without any extra work on your part (to hell if physics doesn’t work that way, that’s probably what he meant).  What exactly would that mean in economic terms.  Would that mean if you put $ 50K in your 401K and somehow lost all of it when the market dipped (which would be interesting since no one lost all of their money, they just lost a portion of it…unless you literally made truly terrible choices…but why should you be responsible for the bad choices you make?) would that mean we need a government program that would give you back your 50K immediately?  How about you were a middle manager pulling in 70K a year and then lost your job in the downturn, and you had to dip into your savings to make it by until you got a new job…the trampoline thing (the way Newt seems to mean it) suggests that is exactly what we’re going to do.  Why should you have to climb the ladder again, you should just shoot to right where you were before.  No work, just starting from where you left off.  The more and more I think about this, the less and less it sounds like capitalism.  Now we could just deal with the people who were making it by on a 50 hour a week job (or two) but lost one or both jobs for one reason or another.  Romney points out that we have safety nets for them (and he admits they’re not all perfect but he will work to fix them), but Newt wants to put them back right where they started…how?  Romney suggested focusing on the middle class, growing the middle class, growing the economy, working to make businesses prosper through reforming taxes and regulation.  This would mean there are more jobs, better paying jobs, more opportunity to start climbing the ladder again.  But since Newt attacked this, it can’t be what he wants.  So are we putting in a government jobs program?  More welfare checks, bigger welfare checks (you know whoever championed welfare reform in the ‘90’s must loathe Newt Gingrich for being so opposed to true welfare reform).  What is Gingrich suggesting is his trampoline?  Because every way I run it, it sounds like socialism (but foolish me I use logic and reason, and the Gingrich camp has no use for those).

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Economics, Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Welfare

Stupid and sick liberal quote of the day

” I promise you that if I become your president, I pledge to you my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor. This is about America.”–Newt after losing Florida.

Never let it be said that Newt is not the most arrogant and hypocritical SOB in the nation.

The rank arrogance of this part is astounding.  The line is a paraphrase from the end of Declaration of Independence,

for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

It is the line of men who believed in their nation so much that they did give their lives and fortunes to defend their nation.  They proved that they had honor.

So let me get this straight…a man who has made millions in writing crappy books where he praises Andrew Jackson as his favorite president (you know the guy who butchered the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears, and who said he would follow Supreme Court  decisions when it had an army of its own to enforce it), who made millions supporting the spawn of Satan (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)…and who last time I checked gives less percentage or dollar wise to charity than Romney.  Yeah he’s giving his fortune.  Most of the signers of the Declaration lost their fortunes defending the new nation, many gave their lives.  Not one ever recanted or said he regretted it.  

But the worst part of this is the sacred honor part.  This is not only a man who has no honor whatsoever (backstabbing GOP colleagues to get power, leaving not just one but 2 sick wives for newer younger versions…both his previous marriages lasted 19 years…I hope Callista has a back up plan already set for 2019) but who dared critique anyone and everyone for brining these issues up as cheap and not relevant to the campaign.  Pick one Newt.  Either character and honor are not relevant, in which case you should to not compare yourself to men of character and honor…or it is relevant, in which case Newt is justifiably described as a pig who has cheated on two wives, a man who has committed numerous ethics violations while in public service, and a man who has no principles, no honor, and no character.

It seems every time this man open his mouth the more disgusting he becomes.  I would remind his supporters, we are Republican, we are conservatives, we believe in character and principle. Yes we may fail to live up to them sometimes (we’re only human), but we don’t just forget them and rush head long toward someone who represents everything we oppose.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Stupid liberal quote of the day

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…RINOs pretend they’re Republicans

“What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque rewriting of history.”

This particularly dumb statement, not surprisingly comes from RINO Sarah Palin.  Palin who loves pork projects that provide bridges to no where.  Palin who never met a liberal RINO she wouldn’t support.  Palin who to this day takes tax payer subsidies.  The ever conservative Palin, who during her governorship, her state had the highest per capita amount of pork barrel projects at the expense of tax payers from the rest of the country. The populist who never met a liberal spending project or liberal spender that she didn’t love.  Yeah her.

Yeah well now she is backing the most liberal GOP contender (let me feign shock for just a second…I’m shocked, shocked!)  in the race, Newt Gingrich…although like a liberal she doesn’t actually have the spine to come out and endorse him, no, she wants to hedge her bets so that there won’t be a backlash when her boy goes down (because it’s really not that Sarah is a liberal, she’s not really anything, her only guiding political principle is saying or doing whatever keeps Sarah in the limelight).

But she seems to feel that the attacks on Newt are unfair.  Stalinistic.  That just because people in the Reagan White House can’t agree on what their opinion is doesn’t mean that it’s rewriting history.  What it means is he was a Congressmen, in the minority, one of 435, during Reagan’s years.  Most Congressmen are beyond forgettable.  So to rewrite history and say that Newt was a driving force in the Reagan years would also be “Stalin-esque,” wouldn’t it Sarah?  Newt probably didn’t have much to do with Reagan or his movement.   Partly because Newt is just an opportunist who will use whatever tactic he can to gain power.

But let’s see what the biggest impression Newt made on Reagan and his copious diary entries…

From page 123 of the Reagan Diaries, Monday January 3rd.  “Newt Gingrich has a proposal for freezing the budge at the 1983 level.  It’s a tempting idea except it would cripple our defense program.”  Defense, that would the be central focus of the Reagan administration, right?  Thanks Newt.  I’m sure the Politburo wished your proposal had gone through.  That’s the biggest impression Newt made on Reagan, a fun but hopelessly naive idea.  That is the only time Reagan mentions Newt, in a diary that goes into detail about everything (even detailing how Prince Charles takes his tea).  Yeah, Newt you and Reagan were tight.

The attacks on Newt’s history in the Reagan administration come from the fact that Newt was the one who first tried to rewrite history, portraying himself as Reagan’s trusty right hand. If the attacks have gotten a little vicious it’s only because Newt’s claims were so preposterously absurd.

The fact of the matter is that Newt has a long history of endorsing liberal ideas when they are politically expedient and personally beneficial and endorsing conservative ideas when they were expedient and personally beneficial.  In fact I think he has a track record of making major changes in his core beliefs every 19 years or so…

1 Comment

Filed under Stupid liberal quote of the day

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…(Why is Newt in this party?)

“Look I think there are a whole bunch of folks who represent the old order; they attacked Ronald Reagan in 1980 exactly the same way. They are looking at a national poll that shows me ahead of Romney 52-39 in a two way race and they are recognizing that if I come back as president, that I will be for very dramatic, very bold change and they are terrified. I have no interest in what Tom Delay did that got him in trouble. I thought it was wrong and a mistake, I have a very different approach to that and I have no Idea what motivates Ann Coulter but I find that she is all over the map. Basically she is for Romney and therefore anything she says about me is a reflection of the fact that she is for Romney. I expect people who are for Romney to attack me because they are terrified because he is losing.”

So every real conservative is part of the old guard and you’re the new, is that it Newt?  Would your new wing be the one for massive spending as you have literally promised the moon and every other hand out you can think of.  Would it be for global warming and helping your friend Nancy Pelosi (whom you cosponsored 481 bills with) imposed psycho global warming mania?  Would this new wing be against Paul Ryan’s “right wing social engineering” which the rest of us call basic math.  Would Newt party be for attacking capitalists for success in some kind of sick Atlas Shrugged reenactment as you seem to have started with attacking Romney’s work at Bain?  If so, I think I have a great name for your new party Newt…it’s called Democrat.

I love that he says Ann Coulter is all over the map on motivations….pot, kettle anyone?

And you have to love him critiquing the ethics of Tom Delay.  But remember if we critique his ethics or ask what was in his ethics charge we’re just unjustified and part of the old guard.

But what is the old guard.  Well if we use Ann as an example.  Ann sits on the advisory board of GOProud …and let me tell you when I think “old guard of the GOP”,  I think GOProud.  And when I think new guard I think of course of the highest Republican in the party who had to leave a decade ago because while he could get us into office he couldn’t seem to do much when there.  Yes let’s try that vastly new way of doing things that we’ve never tried before.

Oh and how about this for the new Newt (there are more versions of Newt than there are cherry picked statements from Romney which try to make him look like a flip-flopper…)

“The effort to create alternatives to marriage between a man and a woman are perfectly natural pagan behaviors, but they are a fundamental violation of our civilization.”

I don’t know if the outright attack on homosexuality (not just a principled argument against changing the laws about marriage, but a full on attack of homosexuality) or the implied attack on my religious beliefs offends me more.  But no matter how you look at it…there is on older guard than this 68 year old former head of the party when it failed to do what it promised to do in the 1990’s.  You know what is bigger “violation of civilization” than homosexuality or paganism?  How about adultery or failure to keep up your end of a contract.

Oh by the way, Newt…the polls are not showing Romney loosing…so who is the one who is afraid?

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Election 2012, GOP, Stupid liberal quote of the day