Positively Republican puts it well:
The guy accused of extra-marital affairs (and vehemently denies the accusations) drops out to endorse the guy who admits to extra-marital affairs.
People immediately jumped all over Cain due to his issues with other women. No one really wants to think about Newt and other women. But it all goes back to the denial factor. People just don’t like being lied to. If Clinton had owned up to Lewinski, there would have been no real story. People would have laughed it off and that would have been the end of it. People didn’t care at all that when Clinton was running and he had sexual harassment suits out the wazoo. That’s what eventually led to Clinton’s “other woman” problems as well. It got to be such an issue that it was never about the lies to cover it up, it was “all about sex”. Anyone over 40 remember that line? Fast forward about 20 years, Cain gets into pretty much exactly the same predicament. Except of course, there’s no lawsuits at this point in time, just a bunch of accusations. But, I haven’t heard “it’s all about sex” one single time. I haven’t heard a word from Hillary about the “vast right-wing conspiracy”.
For some reason none of that applies for Herman Cain.
Anyone care to guess why?
Bet it’s the “R” word.
I’m not defending Cain, I’m chastising media. Ethics is not a one-party issue.
Never was.
30
Nov
So some guy figures out there’s more arsenic in apple juice than water. Nevermind the fact there’s a ton of vitamins and stuff you’ll never get from water. I think he’s an idiot. People have been drinking apple juice, without dying from arsenic poison, for about a thousand or so years. But, they didn’t have the internet or Big Brother to deal with. So, in the spirit of banning everything, the question begs.
OK, this is where this all started:
This struck me as a peculiar story because:
We had ridden an elephant at a circus ride a couple of years ago.
Both sides made compelling arguments:
Those who were against the change said elephants kept in captivity are bound to be aggressive at some point. While others who support the idea say dangerous incidents like the one in 1994 at the Louisville Zoological Gardens where a man suffered injuries after an elephant picked him up and dropped him several times-rarely happens.
My first thought was, “Hmmm, if it hasn’t happened since 1994, then it must be kinda rare?”. Not so says Carol Buckley:
However animal activists, like Carol Buckley with Elephant Aid International, argue that not all aggressive elephant behavior is tracked.
The reason we don’t hear about people being flung around helplessly by large aggressive elephants in Kentucky is not because it doesn’t happen, it’s because of a CONSPIRACY. When people were getting injured by raging elephants, apparently they were telling hospitals and insurance companies they were playing with much more docile tame animals, like their pet horse or very large passive dog. The injuries would be similar wouldn’t ya think?
In the meantime, this kept happening all over the place:
Even international outfits jumped into the fray:
Personally, I think it would make much more sense, even for the elephant huggers, to educate young children about these animals so that they can feel compelled to protect them. Reading about animals in books just doesn’t have the same impact as touching them. In the meantime, compel Fish and Wildlife to monitor these circuses, zoos, and petting zoos to make sure they are treating these animals in as humane a way as possible. If they simply eliminate all need and exposure to these animals, there will be no emotional bond for the next generations to feel compelled to protect them.
29
Nov
A few weeks ago, stories started popping up about some power players in Israel wanting to attack Iran’s missile program.
It kind of shook the media circles for a week or so, then kind of faded away as it always does. Today I read this tho:
A Washington-based research group has released a satellite image showing an “extensively damaged” Iranian missile base two weeks after an explosion at the site was reported.
Right about the time media quits talking, it blows up. Coincidence?
18
Nov
FACT!
| Blood type | Percent of Americans with this type | Who can receive this type |
|---|---|---|
| O+ | 37% | O+, A+, B+, AB+ |
| O– | 6 | All blood types |
| A+ | 34 | A+, AB+ |
| A– | 6 | A+, A–, AB+, AB– |
| B+ | 10 | B+, AB+ |
| B– | 2 | B+, B–, AB+, AB– |
| AB+ | 4 | AB+ |
| AB– | 1 | AB+, AB– |
Doesn’t get any more obvious than THAT now does it?
Those greedy-assed blood bankers out there only let 1% of the people have AB- blood. It must be the rich blood huh? You know what to do:
President Bush took a lot of heat for saying some pretty stupid things. President Obama blows him away on a very regular basis. Today President Obama gives another lesson in geography.
( At about the 35 minute mark
Just a technicality, Hawaii is a state within the United States. As such, it’s part of North America. Physically, it’s none of the above. It’s just a few islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. I am quite certain that once Obama realizes the United States took Hawaii away from the Asians, he will bow his head down to a Japanese person and apologize profusely.
Yeah! Tell me another one! Whew. OK. Let’s get serious. Obama, as usual, is attacking the concept of personal responsibility. The concept that people willingly and knowingly incurred a debt is meaningless to Obama. Completely. Under his watch, the student loan program has been removed from the private sector and made federal ( that’s called socialism, folks ). Now, under a law passed within Obamacare ( yeah, that’s right, student loans are part of health care now ), he’s changing the way the loans are paid back if a student so desires.
What he will never, never, never do. Did I say never do? Is question for one second WHY college tuitions are so expensive in the first place.
Did I say he would never do it? Yeah, I did. Let’s start at the top for a few examples. Shall we?
- Ohio State University. E Gordon Gee, $1,346,225.
- University of Washington, Mark Emmert, $887,870
- University of Virginia, John T. Casteen III,$797,048
- University of Texas, Mark G. Yudof, $786,045
- University of Michigan,Mary Sue Coleman,$760,196
- University of Colorado at Denver,M. Roy Wilson, $740,415
- University of Minnesota-Twin Cities,Robert H. Bruininks, $733,421
- University of Florida,J. Bernard Machen,$731,811
- Arizona State University, Michael M. Crow, $728,750
- Georgia State University, Carl V. Patton, $727,487
Now, contact your local bank and ask them how much the President of the bank makes.
Go ahead, I dare ya.
I double-dog dare ya.
Obama’s not going to do anything about these greedy administrators getting rich on the backs of the poor downtrodden college student for one very simple reason:
- Microsoft Corp $170,323
- Comcast Corp $116,155
- Harvard University $94,225
- Google Inc $90,166
- University of California $83,679
- DLA Piper $79,375
- Chopper Trading $64,815
- Skadden, Arps et al $64,162
- Stanford University $62,928
- Ballard, Spahr et al $61,300
- Time Warner $60,050
- US Government $57,430
- National Amusements Inc $57,100
- Latham & Watkins $54,582
- Arnold & Porter $51,200
- Goldman Sachs $49,124
- Exelon Corp $48,625
- Mayer Brown LLP $46,700
- Bank of America $46,699
- Columbia University $45,097
Universities have more money to give than those greedy corporate banks.
And you know where that money comes from dontcha? That’s right. Obamacare is making sure kids who can’t afford those administrative salaries can borrow all they ever wanted from the federal government.
And if the payments get to be too much, they occupy Wall Street to protest.
Yeah. And not one single person at CNN or MSNBC questions the hypocrisy of all this. Obama attacks banks, Occupy Wall Street shows up on cue complaining about bank greed and having to pay their student loans, and not one single “student” complains about greed in higher education, where they are making more than most bankers.
26
Oct
Jobs report in October 2011:
Not much time left. Which begs the question:
20
Oct
Seriously. He does:
BLS doesn’t agree:
Since the president’s January 2009 inauguration, total private sector employment has dropped by 1.6 million, though 2.5 million jobs have been added to the private sector since the term low in February 2010.
He’s doing this for a reason. The last stimulus targeted almost exclusively the public sector. It obviously didn’t work. Unemployment rose sharply. When the public sector funding under TARP ran out, a strange thing happened. Unemployment stayed the same.
In other words, TARP spending under the public sector obviously had no real impact on the unemployment rate.
But, that’s exactly what Reid and Obama want to do again. So, they have to make a new argument. That argument is the private sector doesn’t need help. The public sector does.
On face value it sounds really stupid. Republicans will have a field day with this.
On paper, it looks really stupid.
Reality, it just IS really stupid.
Obama and Reid have declared war on the private sector in every capacity. It’s wrecked our economy for a decade to come. This is just more of the same. The Occupy Wall Street bunch are simply tools for Obama that have bought into his theme ( and been bought too ). Corporations are evil, unions are their savior. It’s sad, and it’s sick.
Just wonder how many people really believe all this crap?
