About Me

Name: Armanius
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

AP: equating conservatives to racists and is the country more liberal than conservative?

The AP published a recent piece titled GOP maintains grip in the South, but at what cost? The article states in part the following:
 
"Forty years ago, Republicans under Richard Nixon decided that national success required breaking up the Democratic dominance in the South. They did so by employing a "Southern strategy" of appealing to white resentment over desegregation and later by highlighting liberal Democratic positions on social and welfare issues.

Today, conservative positions on gun rights, abortion and gay marriage are staples of the Republican platform, as well as a disdain for any tax increases and unyielding support for the war in Iraq.

 
But if these hard-line conservative positions sell in the Deep South, they appear to have alienated voters elsewhere, if the past two elections are any indication."
 
Note how the article associates "conservative positions" with "white resentment over desegregation." In other words, as one of my liberal coworkers likes to imply when we discuss politics, conservatism equates and breeds racists and bigots.
 
The article then goes on to conclude that the purported "conservative positions" alienated 52% of the American voters. The article forgets that even in an overwhelmingly blue state such as California, Californian voters voted for Proposition 8, which banned gay-marriage. 52.4% of Californians voted for Proposition 8, even though 61.1% of them voted for Obama, and 37.1% went for McCain.
 
What does this article show? First, the very much liberal AP sees conservativism as something negative and directly related to racism and bigotry.
 
Second, the AP is probably wrong that conservative positions alienated voters who are not in the Deep South. To make that connection, one would have to assume that the majority of the country holds "liberal" positions. In my opinion, the vote for Proposition 8 dispells that myth, especially because California is considered one of the more liberal states in the country. Yet, the vote for Proposition 8 shows that either 15.3% of Obama supporters are conservatives who chose not to vote for McCain, or 15.3% of Obama supporters are liberals who oppose gay marriage. I believe that the country still leans right. But most Americans, even the conservative ones, were so disillusioned with Republicans, whether rightfully or wrongfully, that they were willing to vote for Obama. Hence, I do not believe conservative positions is a lost proposition in national elections.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The next 4 years - Americans will make even less money

I was so disgusted with our political scene during the last month of election that I could not bear blogging about politics anymore here in Townhall. From the liberal mainstream bias to the ineptitude of McCain's campaign, from the blatant Obama dishonesty to 52% of Americans showing that they don't care (or are just plain ignorant) about a candidate's record, I was and I am simply fed up with it all. When I woke up this morning (a.k.a. "the morning after"), I did not want to read any news website. I did not want to read about Obama. So I focused instead on just catching up with the world of sports that I had also avoided for about four days since the Texas Longhorns lost to Tech. But even ESPN.com ended up bringing me back to politics. In an article authored by the Associated Press "Agents ponder effect of likely tax increase on salaries", the reality of the Obama administration has already began to set in the world of sports. Super agent Scott Boras has already discussed factoring the higher taxes that his multi-millionaire clients will incur under the Obama administration by seeking higher signing bonuses. So for you Obama supporters out there, mark my words -- our baseball ticket prices are eventually going to get even more expensive than they already are. The increase in ticket prices we see every year will increase even more. Why? The rich athletes are going to get more money from the rich owners. And then the rich owners will pass down the higher salary prices that they are paying to the rich players to the people that are not so rich -- namely you and me. So to all the Obama supporters who bought into the propaganda that 95% of Americans would see a better life because of a tax "break," get ready for reality. As the top 5% gets taxed more, as businesses get taxed more, all Americans will suffer as the increased cost of doing business will get passed down to the every day consumer -- the not so rich you and me. The end result of it all is that the tax "breaks" and/or the $500 check that 40% of non-tax paying Americans will receive each year will mean nothing compared to the increase in prices that Americans will see in most goods and services. The buying power of our hard earned dollar will be even less. That's the change that we Americans don't need.  But that's the change that we will get.
 
PS: Two weeks ago, the Houston Astros decided not to increase their ticket prices for the 2009 season. Hopefully, they will stick to that.
I also forgot to mention that the rich owners will also get taxed more. I will let the Obama supporters figure out what is going to happen when the rich owners decide that they have to recoup that money from somewhere. One final thought, when our hard earned dollar's buying power is decreased through this pseudo-form of inflation brought about by higher taxes, who will the Obama supporters blame? Will they look at themselves and take personal responsibility? Or will they simply keep drinking the liberal kool-aid and say that it was George Bush's fault?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Debate: Missed Opportunities for McCain

I was disappointed with McCain's performance in the debate. Obama left openings in my mind that McCain could have used to make his case to the American people that he, John S. McCain, is the person that voters must choose to lead this nation. Overall, I thought McCain did slightly better than Obama, who as always refused to give definite answers in response to several questions. The most negative aspect of the debate yesterday was Obama constantly trying to interrupt McCain, which I thought was very unpresidential and disrespectful.
 
Here are some of my thoughts on how McCain could have made yesterday night HIS night, and I am paraphrasing here given that I don't have a transcript:
 
Economy
 
Obama said: I want to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.
 
McCain should have said: I want to cut taxes for ALL Americans. I will not play class warfare and penalize one class over another.
 
Obama said: McCain wants to cut taxes for businesses that are already paying low taxes because of corporate loop holes and which are not even asking for lower taxes.
 
McCain should have said: The Federal Government is already receiving record amounts of revenues from both business taxes and income taxes from individuals.
 
Obama said: Jobs are being taken overseas.
 
McCain should have said: Senator Obama, your plan will drive even more job overseas.
 
McCain did say: Ireland has 11% business tax versus the 35% business tax in U.S. Businesses will take their operations to places where it's cheaper to conduct business, which is sort of what I proposed above. But not as clear to the viewer at home.
 
Foreign Policy
 
Obama said: [On the success of the surge] There is still no political stability in Iraq.
 
McCain should have immediately asked Obama a rhetorical question: Senator Obama, do you believe that we must win in Iraq?
 
Obama would have probably said (after equivocating) that he wants to win in Iraq, and that his plan was for Iraq to assume responsibility for itself.
 
McCain should have then said: We need to have political stability in Iraq. There is only political stability, if there is security. There is only security, because of military victory. There is only military victory today, because of the surge. And you Senator Obama, opposed the surge in 2007, and you still oppose the surge today even though hindsight is 20/20. In short, you do not believe victory in Iraq is essential.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's "Censorship" Squad

Obama is asking Missouri law enforcement to prosecute and stop misleading campaign ads, and has formed "Truth Squads". Of course, I suppose the Obama campaign gets the final call as to what is considered "misleading" or "false." They more like "Censorship Squads" and certainly not "truth" squads. As we all know now, this is nothing new about how Obama operates. His campaign has already threatened radio stations who have guests that do not worship before the altar of the mighty O. His campaign, including Obama himself, has already smeared most Obama's critics and opponents as racists, bigots, liars, and "in the pocket" of corporate America. Once again, I find it so amusing that Obama and other liberals, the ardent supporters of civil liberties such as the freedom of speech, are so quick to suppress and attempt to silence anyone who disagrees with them. I suppose given that Obama has NEVER won an election in which he did not first disqualify some if not all of his political opponents through some procedural matter, or disqualify his opponent by disclosing to the public some scandalous information about the opponent (hence causing the opponent to withdraw), this is the typical Obama modus operandi. Why give people choices when you can win an election by only having one name in the ballot? Why give people the ability to hear competiting ideas if you can suppress your opponent's ideas? That's Barrack Hussein Obama, ladies and gentlemen, the man who wants to be our president.
 
ps: Isn't it hypocritical that Obama and his pawns are all about censoring their opponents, and yet, they scream bloody murder just because Sarah Palin had a run-in with the local librarian about books that Alaskans do not want in their libraries.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin's email hacked!!

It appears that Obama supporters will go at ANY LENGTH to destroy Gov. Palin, and have hacked into her private email account. They not only hacked into her private email, but then published them all over the internet. Certain sites that have published the content are even calling the information "newsworthy."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama: kill or give habeas corpus to terrorists?

As always, Obama loves to hold both sides of an issue at the same time. Pandering? Ignorance? Who knows! While speaking to a crowd in Michigan, Obama said that his position about the war on terror "has always been clear: If you've got a terrorist, take 'em out, take 'em out. Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take 'em out." In short, kill the terrorist. But then he goes on to criticize the Bush administration's suspension of the right of habeas corpus for suspected terrorists. He said that "Habeas corpus ... is the foundation of Anglo-American law, which says very simply, if the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, `Why was I grabbed?' and say, `Maybe, you've got the wrong person.'"
 
If I may be so bold as to try to analyze what Obama is saying is that we, as a nation, have the right to kill terrorists. But, if we arrest the terrorists instead, the terrorists are then entitled to habeas corpus rights under American civilian jurisprudence. Isn't that an oxymoronic position to have? If terrorists are entitled to habeas corpus rights, why would we, as a nation, have a right to just "take 'em out?" I suppose, if I am a soldier or law enforcement agent, I should just kill terrorists on sight then, instead of trying to capture them. If someone can make sense out of this one, please let me know. Again, is this just pure Obama doublespeak, or just plain ignorance?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama not in class the day law was taught in law school

Obama told a crowd of his supporters in Duryea, Pennsylvania that he believes that the Second Amendment is an individual right. When some in the crowd appeared to be unconvinced by his record of supporting gun control legislation, Obama told the crowd "Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress ..." Obama's remark is problematic on three fronts. First, if he really believes that bearing arms is an individual right, then why even make this hypothetical? As noted in one of my previous blogs discussing Obama's flip-flop on gun rights, Obama was probably surprised that the crowd was not taking his statement that he is a supporter of gun rights at its face value. So he thought that this remark would assuage their fears. Second, by making this statement, there is an implication that if Obama had enough votes in Congress, he would try to pass a law to take guns away. Third, Obama was/is a constitutional lawyer. He graduated from Harvard. If he truly believes that gun rights is an individual right under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, he ought to know that Congress cannot pass a law that violates the Constitution. So either Obama truly believes that gun rights is not an individual right under the Constitution (and is thus lying to people), or he just doesn't know his law. Sort of like the 57 states in our country. I am not sure which one is worse - a liar or someone that did not go to class when law was taught in law school. You decide.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

World wants Obama to win!!!

Apparently someone decided to poll the world to see who the world wants to win in our presidential race. The results of the poll show a clear desire by the world for an Obama victory. The way I see it, all the more reason not to vote for Obama.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Kinky Friedman on O'Reilly: cried during McCain's speech

Democrat Kinky Friedman was on O'Reilly tonight and said that the last three minutes of McCain's speech moved him to tears. Friedman was hilarious. He said that he was moved to tears, after first going through 53 minutes of diabetic commatose! (So was I.) Friedman said that the only other time he cried in politics was when Adlai Stevenson lost the presidential race in 1956! Friedman finished the interview by predicting that Sarah Palin is going to "... waltze McCain into the White House. He [McCain] is a big enough man to enjoy the ride. Contrast with Obama, who was not big enough to take someone with the charisma of Hillary ..."
 
It was a very entertaining interview.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fred Thompson: liberal tax policy in a nutshell

Why liberal tax policy is IDIOTIC ... so easy that a Geico caveman can understand!

Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they are not going to tax your family.

No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business," like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business," don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.

They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.
 
- Fmr. Sen. Fred Thompson's speech before the Republican National Convention on September 2, 2008.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gov. Palin and Alaska National Guard

Greta Van Susteren interviewed Major General Craig Campbell tonight in "On the Record." Gen. Campbell is the highest ranked officer in the Alaska National Guard. He clearly defined what Gov. Sarah Palin's duties and roles entail as related to the Alaska National Guard. He said that she is the commander in chief of the national guard and in charge of running, managing and operating the national guard. She has control of when to deploy the troops, and in fact, sent some guardsmen down to Louisiana when Gov. Bobby Jindal requested additional assistance from other states to handle the Hurricane Gustav situation. Gen. Campbell said that the governor is the commander, and "Sarah Palin does it great." When Gov. Palin became governor, she immediately went to Kuwait to visit the Alaskan units stationed there. When she returned to Alaska, she brought with her new ideas about implementing the needs and desires of what the soldiers needed, and to provide for the family of the soldiers. Gen. Campbell stated that "That's exactly what a commander in chief does - takes care of soldiers. And Gov. Palin does it exceptionally well." Gov. Palin goes to deployments, to returns, ensures that there is sufficient money in the budget for the soldiers, and pushes for policies that provide for the soldiers and their families. Gen. Campbell said that Gov. Palin has done "above and beyond" what governors normally do, and called her a "quick learner," absorbing an incredible amount of information about the national guard in a short amount of time.
 
Does Obama have any comparable experience?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Libs at CNN want to pretend 9/11 never happened

I was watching CNN's coverage of the RNC when the RNC started showing a video about remembering 9/11. The CNN crew, not only their liberal commentators but even their anchors started making comments about how "some people" will say that a video about 9/11 with "powerful images" has no place in a political convention. Blitzer said that "some" say that there is no need to bring these images into this hall. John King noted that "some" will say that a video about 9/11 is "playing politics out of a tragedy." Brown added that the message from the RNC is "fear" and made a rhetorical question that "is that what Republicans want?"
 
Obviously, these types of comments and criticisms against Republicans are nothing new. That's what the libs said in 2004 and now they are saying again in 2008.  Libs want to pretend that 9/11 never occurred.  But they do so not because they want to be "sensitive" to the victims of 9/11. Rather, they want 9/11 to disappear from the memories of the American people, because the American people have typically perceived the libs that make up the Democratic Party as "weak" on defense/foreign policy since the Jimmy Carter days. So these libs and their media lackeys (i.e. CNN) cry out foul every time someone talks about the war on terror, or 9/11, or how no more attacks on American soil have occurred since President Bush took the war on terror onto foreign soil.
 
Libs can so easily diffuse the perception of being "weak" by adopting a tougher policy. Instead, libs choose to chant their usual mantra of moral relativism while singing kumbaya with people who don't particularly like America. Instead of adopting a tougher policy against the "bad guys," libs want to say that America needs to have "clean hands" before telling those Russian invaders that they are "bad." And ultimately, instead of telling the American people that they, the libs of the Democratic Party, will lead America to victory over terrorism, libs would rather pretend that there is no war against terror, and that America should just leave 9/11 alone in Vol. III, page 439 of Encyclopedia Brittanica.
 
I wonder why libs in the Democratic Party are so afraid of being tough.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

O'Reilly let Obama off easy on Iraq

While O'Reilly was most likely the most aggresive interviewer that Obama has ever faced, O'Reilly let Obama off on the question that if it was up to Obama and Biden, there would have been no surge. O'Reilly also should have followed up by saying that if there had been no surge, Iraq would be lost now, and then ask the question:
 "Senator Obama, if there had been no surge as you proposed, Iraq would have been lost. Is defeat in Iraq acceptable to you?"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama in O'Reilly Factor - WITH PRECONDITIONS!!!

As you all know, Obama decided that he would finally allow Bill O'Reilly to interview him in an attempt to steal some thunder from the RNC. Obama and his staff apparently had to come to terms with Fox News that O'Reilly would not attempt to embarass Obama! Along the same lines, Elizabeth Hasselback from "The View" stated that "unlike the wife of another political candidate, who shall remain nameless, Cindy McCain did not come to cohost The View with a list of topics we weren't allowed to touch ..."
 
So the question of the day is: if Obama is willing to meet with terrorists and dictators without preconditions, why would he not meet with Bill O'Reilly without preconditions??
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama: I am qualified to be president b/c I am running for president

So Obama says he has more experience making executive decisions while dealing with natural disasters (i.e. Katrina) than Palin, because of the size of his presidential campaign in terms of man power and budget. He first only talked about Palin's experience as a mayor, totally ignorning the fact that she has also run an entire state for the last two years with man power and budget that far exceed Obama's presidential campaign. Then he concluded that his campaign machine actually counts as executive experience!!! Never mind the fact that Obama's main role in his own presidential campaign is to read from a teleprompter!
 
Isn't it funny that Obama could not respond to Anderson Cooper's question by citing to any REAL executive experience that he actually has or had? Obama's argument that he has executive experience to be the president is that he is running to be the president! Obama's argument is similar to someone that applies for a job, and then cites as relevant experience, the mere fact that he completed the job application!!!
 
What a joke. The sad part from all of this is that half of American voters have bought into Obama's marketing propaganda and refuse to see that Obama has no experience and lacks good judgment to be the president.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345Next »