DEAR REPUBLICANS:
My boss is not my doctor. My health care choices are none of my boss’s business — and none of yours, either.
Seriously — what’s wrong with you guys?
Signed,
Al Franken
&
YOUR NAME + OTHERS HERE
He thinks allowing individual employers to decide how to best recruit their employees is a bad thing. He thinks that the Democrats, with the muscle of the federal government, should be the only ones who decide what’s best for every single person in the United States. There are no exceptions, everyone is exactly the same. A garbage man is exactly the same as a doctor. Someone who works just to have a job merits the exact same benefits as someone who paid their way through college for four or eight years.
Folks, that’s just communism in its purest form.
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.
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?
20
Oct
I’d like to start with a question,
So, what’s the difference between a “war” and a “kinetic military action”? Does the mere fact a president changes the wording allow him to completely ignore the Constitution and go to “kinetic military action”?
How big does the lie have to be before Obama supporters finally start admitting it’s a lie? Wars are pretty big dontcha think?
For what it’s worth, I never believed in “police actions” either. However, all combat situations did get some sort of Congressional approval. Only one President I’m aware of attacked another country unprovoked with no approval at all from Congress. Correct me if I’m wrong. Yes, even Clinton’s shooting a million dollar missile up a camel’s butt had standing Congressional approval.
22
Mar
That’s not my poll, but it’s a dead-on appropriate question. Obama says it’s about the intended genocide Khadafi threatened. Well, that’s been going on unabated in Yemen, Sudan, and several parts of Africa. What’s so special about Libyans that other Africans don’t merit?
When Bush citied weapons of mass destruction and known threats coming from Iraq, a good chunk of the media claimed it was all about the oil. Libya has provided a lot more oil than Iraq ever did and so far, best I can tell, not one single person on MSNBC or CNN has questioned Obama about his intent regarding Libya. In fact, CNN has gone to more trouble to point out this action is nothing like Iraq. Attacking two genocidal dictators of oil rich nations is merely a coincidence according to CNN. What Bush did was bad, what Obama did justified. Only difference was the one Bush took out was attacking other countries repeatedly, the one Obama took out was not.
Check that, another difference was one country was threatening us with weapons of mass destruction, and had used them against others. The other was not.
Check that again, one had known terrorist organizations thriving and operating from their country, the other claims to be under attack from those terrorist organizations and had recently assisted us in targeting terrorist organizations.
Check that one more time. One had committed genocide against his own people, the other threatened to.
Check that yet again, one president asked Congress for approval to attack another country, one did not.
That’s more of your change you can believe in.
Get this straight, then we’ll talk about the rest:
U.S. Secretary of State meets with Libyan rebels
OK, we have openly sided, once again, with one side in a civil war. Granted no one seems to like Kadhafi, choosing a side involves not only showing support for one side, but showing opposition to all those people that support the other side. My own person opinion is to stay out of it and show support for whoever leads the country after the fact, whether we like them or not.
IF we do decide to support one side over the other, then you better fight to win. The other side will. If you lose then you can pretty much count on that country’s resources going to oppose anything you try to do, or worse.
So, what does this president do?
What is now the one month anniversary of the uprisings, a full thirty days after Kadhafi ordered his military to attack those rebels and anything associated with them:
Hillary Clinton is meeting with the rebels while the military does nothing. And, yesterday, the United Nations Security Council met and could not come to an agreement over the no-fly policy in Libya.
In simpler terms, nothing.
In a week or two, this will be over.
Then, in Libya, Kadhafi will continue to hate us and everyone else there won’t trust us because Clinton led them on and Obama did nothing by passing the hat to an organization he knows is plodding and inept.
Which of course leads to my neverending poll:
And a little less importantly:
Although in the throes of civil war, Libya has never been much of a beacon of human rights. Now, having to deal with a threat to his leadership, Gadhafi’s only solution is to kill everyone. Although the estimates are at around 1,000 casualties, I’m going to bet it’s a lot higher. All of this begs the questions:
Should Libya still be on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights?
And,
That’s the headline. It’s all over the place. According to whoever wrote this, it could “in theory”, legalize killing abortion doctors. Pretty harsh huh? The part they cite that provides that logic is:
The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state’s legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person “while resisting an attempt to harm” that person’s unborn child or the unborn child of that person’s spouse, partner, parent, or child.
Absolute legal rubbish. Anyone knows state laws can not over-ride federal laws. Murder is still murder. This bill is obviously intended to allow a mother to protect herself. Duh. Apparently Kate Sheppard doesn’t know murder is a felony. Never one to miss a good opportunity, Vicki Saporta of National Abortion Federation jumped in as well:
“The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers… This is not an abstract bill,” Saporta says. The measure could have major implications if a “misguided extremist invokes this ‘self-defense’ statute to justify the murder of a doctor, nurse or volunteer,”
Vicki missed the recent case where an abortion doctor was killed and the murderer used that very defense. It didn’t work.
The bill has been tabled, meaning it won’t even be debated or voted on. So, the headline, which was grossly wrong in the first place, is more wrong now. South Dakota is not “moving”. The bill is dead. And, they never moved to “legalize killing abortion providers”. Implicit or not. Fun headline, but wrong on every level. Anyone think there will be a headline somewhere about reporters writing misleading stories? Polls are still fun tho. I think most people are on to Kate.
One update, the bill has been re-written to clarify that this not open season on abortion doctors. It still is DOA and most likely never will be considered IMO. Not so much because of the controversy, but because it’s a very poorly written piece of legislation.
13
Sep
I’m still trying to figure this all out.
John Boehner said he might play nice with Obama and support whatever tax cuts Obama wants, since it’s better than nothing. Robert Gibbs immediately attacked Boehner pointing out it was the policies of the last eight years that got us in this mess now. That reflects what Obama said in Cleveland last week as well. So, now Boehner is being attacked for saying he will possibly support Obama. Which side is the “party of No”?
The bigger problem I see here is Obama is still playing a dangerous game in my opinion. He is reacting to Bush. He’s still putting Bush in control. He’s not being Presidential. He’s saying that in order to keep what was happening eight years ago from happening again, and to assure more of what is happening now keeps happening, we need to listen to Obama and not the people who are not in charge. Now, to illustrate my point here, take this poll real quick:
[polldaddy poll=3756484]
I’m gonna bet, before this is even voted on, that 2010′s not going to rate up there terribly highly. Now, what Obama’s banking on is people will look back on, say, 2005, and think how much worse it was than now. Two immediate problems, things weren’t so bad in 2005. And, people are concerned a lot more about right now than they are some point in the past. If they’re out of a job right now, and they had a job in 2005, the man in charge right now’s just not going to fare too well. And, the message Obama keeps delivering is not that he’s going to give that person a job, it’s that that person should be happy that it’s not 2005 all over again. I just don’t think that’s working too well:
Quite frankly, until Obama gets off this bizarre obessive compulsive blame game and starts acting like a leader, he’s going to dig himself even deeper into holes he won’t be able to get out of. I personally think he’s already there.
