Never Politically Correct! Terms and conditions apply; read the prospectus carefully; void where prohibited. Side effects have included, but are not limited to side aches, nauseau, baldness, dry mouth, munchie desire, hallucinations, male urinary disfunction and drowsiness. Do not drive after reading. If erection lasts longer than 4 hours, you're reading too much into this.
While the housing industry collapse has been dragging our economy down the mountain, the Democrats financial policies and sometimes their lack of details are shoving us right off the cliff. President Obama, showing his economic genius, says that the markets are just tracking polls with day-to-day shifts. Somebody needs to smack him upside the head – this is a plunge not a shift. We know he knows jack about economics or the markets, he’s told us that. So why does he have to continue to prove it with intelligent comments on “profit earnings ratio”. It’s price earnings ratio. Every time they come out with some policy or detail, the economy shows its confidence by taking a nosedive. Down over 30% now since Obama won election.
Now the Democrats are looking for scapegoats, people they can try to demonize as the true evil in the world. They’ve tried with Bush and some of the Executive Orders and privilege of power that the President in entrusted with. Saying how wrong it is that Bush could have sent troops into our own streets at anytime. Guess what? Clinton talked about having this very power while he was in office. This is nothing new. It’s been done many times during our history. President Wilson even used it to send out troops to disarm civilians and state and local police at one time. Talk about destroying the constitution. William Jefferson Clinton is still the all-time champ at legislating from the oval office by executive orders.
So whom do the Democrats go after as the number one target on their “enemies list”? Rush Limbaugh. Rush is already the leading conservative radio talker. He doesn’t really need the additional publicity, but he will gladly accept it. In fact he is able to use this to his advantage. This is exactly what he wants. His numbers and popularity can’t do anything but go through the roof.
This new strategy comes from the pathetic minds of a Rahm Emanuel and his attack dog James Carville. Carville does this out of jealousy, since his own dream of talking-head popularity crashed. No one wants to listen to whiny liberal talkers. Emanuel has that Chicago politics engrained in him that says you always need to be attacking those that speak out against you, even if it is a private citizen like Joe the Plumber or Rush Limbaugh.
Here’s an idea. President Obama should stop campaigning for just a minute and listen to some of the Senators from his own party that have realized that this current budget package is loaded with all the wrong kinds of pork. Better idea, listen to Congressman Ryan’s plan and start putting this country back on the right path to recovery.
Today is the day we should all start feeling stimulated. Liberals will probably still have to pay to get stimulated. The unfortunate fact is that our grandchildren will be paying for our stimulation.
Obama finally signs the package that everybody else had to hurry up and rush through, while he takes his own sweet time to sign it at another 2012 campaign stop, this time in Colorado. Do you suppose he will take the time to answer a few questions from some carefully chosen ahead of time reporters today, since this is the only way he has done it to this point?
Prediction: We will start to hear positively spun economic numbers within the next month, as if the stimulus had already had an effect on the economy.
What do you mean that wasn’t a campaign speech? You say he already won? Maybe somebody better tell him that. Every time you hear him speak from various functions it sounds just like he is still campaigning. Saying the same things and making the same promises he made last fall.
Well he is a very competent campaigner, as well he should be. He’s been doing nothing but campaigning now for almost 14 years. Maybe he’s just stuck in a loop that he can’t get out of. He still sends updates out through his e-mail campaign list to supporters using his campaign manager, although now it’s called “Organizing for America”. Maybe this is all we can expect from him, after all the next election is only four years away.
Several times during his speech he mentioned profiles of people, like the single mother living in Elkhart, Indiana, and how this spending package is what she needs. Reporters never nailed him on the specifics of how this would help her. He also tried to talk about his desire for bipartisanship, but that the other side is playing politics. What a crock! If others feel that what you are offering is detrimental to the country and want to fight for something better, then they should continue the fight. By the way Barrack, next time get your House members in line right from the start, working with the Republicans, instead of shutting them out, if you want a chance at bipartisanship. It really does take both sides working together to accomplish this. Obama says that what they have in the package isn’t perfect, but we need to pass it now or our country is finished. This is just more of his fear mongering. What’s in the package is still 90% pure pork.
I was amazed watching this on CBS, and hearing that even their news analysts get it, that his biggest problem on this isn’t the Republicans, but his own party members in the House adding every spending package that they have wished for, and trying to sell it as helping America. Yeah, helping us into an even longer and deeper depression than just doing nothing would accomplish.
President Obama, here is a suggestion. Please have one of your tax evading cabinet nominees give you a whack on the side of the head, or push your reboot button to get you out of this endless campaign mode. Your country needs you to stop campaigning, and start getting things done.
Update: The Congressional Budget Office has come out and said that the recession will end during the second half of 2009 without the stimulus. It also said that the stimulus would only make it worse and prolong the recession.The Democrats are liars and thieves. Stealing from your kids and grandkids.
“Pass it now or we may never recover.” This is the type of politics that Obama favors if he doesn’t get his way. Fear-Mongering. This is all over the economic crap package, which not even all Democrats are buying into as several Dems in the House voted against the House version of the bill last week.Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks has a full write up on the Top 10 Reasons to Oppose the Stimulus.
- The Stimulus Will Not Work
- The Stimulus follows the same plan that ruined Japan’s economy
- The Stimulus is full of Wasteful Projects
- The Government Can’t Afford the Stimulus
- We Can’t afford the Stimulus
- The Stimulus Is Bigger Than The Economic Output of Most Countries
- Central Planning like the Stimulus Doesn’t Work, Ask the USSR
- Remember the $750 Billion Bailout from this Fall?
- This Money Doesn’t Grow on Trees
- Economists do NOT Agree this is a Good Idea
Liberals like to think this is about Republicans trying to stick it to the Democrats, but this is about making the right decisions for America for the long term or buying into the Obama fear tactics. Remember, Congressional Republicans did not favor TARP either and that was already one huge mistake.
The 2009 Super Bowl is history, the guacamole is cleaned up and the next meaningful game is September 5th. The game itself was fun to watch, particularly the last quarter. Poor officiating for a Super Bowl and too many stupid penalties by players kept this game from being the greatest Super Bowl. Congratulations to the Steelers and their fans for their victory.
I also enjoyed Bruce Springsteen's halftime performance. Never a great singer, the nearly 60-year-old Springsteen and his East Street Band put on a very good performance. I would have preferred to have the new song and Glory Days replaced with a couple of other songs, but we can't always get what we want. (Sorry for the Stones reference.)
If your party or house was like mine, the ads were a bit of a disappointment overall. The anticipation of the 3-D ads set us up for a real let down. Anyway, in my opinion, here are a few of the winners and losers for Super Bowl 2009 Ads. Too see any of these ads again you can go to Super Bowl Ads: 2009 - SPIKE.
Best Bang For the Buck: Disney World. They didn't pay for an ad, but got a huge plug from Bruce Springsteen when he shouted, "I'm going to Disney World", at the end of his performance. Not much later was a 30 second spot that cost $3,000,000.00 for Universal Orlando. Free from the Boss is a better bargain. Also in this category is the 1-second spot for Miller High Life. It had as big an impact as any of the Bud or Bud Light ads, which for a change were mostly lame. Finally in this category is the Doritos add with the crystal ball. I thought the ad was one of the funniest - yes it was somewhat crude in its slapstick humor, but it was also filmed for just $2,000 by a couple of out of work guys that did most of it in one take.
Other ads that I liked included the other Doritos ad showing the power of Doritos to give you what you want. This made Doritos one of the big winners of the night. I also enjoyed the Bridgestone ad featuring the Mr. Potato Head and the way to talkative Mrs. Potato Head. Nextel's ad featuring Roadies running the airport was entertaining. The Hulu.com ad featuring Alec Baldwin was pretty funny and in an annoying until its funny spot, I enjoyed the people that should look for a new job in the Careerbuilders.com ad. Finally, my favorite ad was one that had a little nostalgia. It was the ad for Coke Zero that was similar to the Mean Joe Green Coke ad from 1980, but incorporated the new Coke Zero guys in a slight comic twist.
The losers of the night besides Budweiser had to be all of the movie ads and car ads. I really didn't have any desire to see these movies base on the ads, and none of the spots for automobiles were all that clever. GoDaddy.com laid a couple of eggs and other than the "I'm good", Pepsi Max spot, and the other Pepsi ads were fairly boring. In a strange twist, a couple of the ads for NBC television shows were actually better than most of the ads that tried too hard to be entertaining.
What did you think? Let me know and here's hoping next years ads are better, and that we get to see the Bears dominate in the big game once again.
Somebody needs to teach President Obama what bipartisanship means. It usually means two sides coming together in agreement, often with some sort of compromise being reached. It always means, however, that both sides agree. It does not mean telling the other side "It's my way or the highway".
In a meeting this week with Republican congressmen, that is in effect what the President told them. The Republicans had brought to him their ideas for an improved Stimulus Plan. At least the President sounded like he was willing to listen, while the Democrats in Congress, who created this pile of pork and goodies, would have nothing to do with any input from Republicans.
Too bad the President that promised bipartisanship isn't willing to work for it and has no idea what it means. Both its leader and his party are destroying a Presidency that was supposed to be about so much hope and people coming together.
I enjoy the Super Bowl. Doesn't matter that the teams usually don't include my Bears.
As much as I enjoy the game, I also look forward to the commercials that usually air for the first and sometimes only time during the game. Some of the funniest and most memorable commercials have been seen first during this pricey advertising time. It could also be said that some of the biggest ad bombs have also made their debut during the Super Bowl.
Over the years some ads have done better by not being shown during the Super Bowl. This year is no exception, as several ads have been rejected for one reason or another. PETA tried to air a pro-vegetarian ad that NBC said was too racy. It involved scantily clad models in steamy scenes with vegetables. The publicity from this rejection is probably better for PETA than if it had been aired. The video has received a lot of hits on youtube and has been shown by a number of news and entertainment news programs.
Another of the recently rejected ads is a pro-life Obama commercial by Catholicvote.org. It shows an ultra-sound of a baby in the womb, and tells the story of Barack Obama. NBC first accepted this ad, but has since said that they are not going to show any advocacy ads. Once again the publicity from this may prove to be worth more that actually airing the ad.
Just like last year, I will be reviewing the ads that actually do air and will publish an article that rates the best and the worst. I would appreciate it if anybody wants to comment on that article with his or her own best and worst. Remember to stop back at http://community.livinglakecountry.com/blogs/what_the_/default.aspx. Thanks!
What isn't in it would be a shorter list.
I urge everyone to take a look at the text of this bill to see some of the crap they are trying to pass off as stimulus.
Congress has buried all kinds of earmarks and other nuggets of dung in the hopes of appeasing their constituents or payoff particular political action groups.
Most Republicans, like our own Paul Ryan, are dead set against this. Too bad the Dems didn't bother to get any input from Republicans on this. In fact as Ryan has learned, the price tag on this anything but Stimulus Bill now has a price tag of over $ 1 trillion.
And if Congress is not asking for bi-partisan help in drafting an actual Stimulus Plan, than surely President Obama can't be in favor of this. After all he promised that bi-partisanship would be the only way to tackle these problems.
This may just be the beginning to folks. Most of these programs and projects, as always happens, will cost more than what we've been told. Also, any government program that gets started never goes away. Just think about our own stadium tax. The best physical example of this is the toll roads in Illinois. They were only supposed to be temporary - as a way to pay for some infrastructure costs. Well, once the money is coming in they can always find more uses for it.
Plus many of these programs and projects will have ongoing costs that will continue long after this stimulus money is gone. Light rail is a good example.
This bill is a bad gamble that all of our grandchildren will be paying an enormous debt for and will do nothing, but put us into an even worse position than we are now. Any Republican or Democrat that votes for this needs to be voted out of office as soon as possible.
Please contact your congressmen and senators now, to let them know how you feel.
I grew up in a time when seat belts were optional, Mom's lap was the child safety seat, bike helmets were only worn by those that raced, the only skaters that wore helmets were in the roller derby and most hockey players still chose not to wear helmets. Some say that all the added safety equipment is leading to the whimpification of Americans; others say we are messing with natural selection by keeping stupid or uncoordinated people alive. I think most of the safety improvements have been a benefit to our quality of life.
I have two boys that have given me the opportunity to attend hundreds of youth, middle school and high school sporting events during the last 12 plus years in Mukwonago. During the last few years, one sport has caused me more concern for high-risk injury than any other. Cheerleading! Go to a high school basketball game this winter and you will see the cheerleaders performing on the gym floor. Throwing girls into the air, standing on top of some cheerleaders and dropping into the arms of other cheerleader and performing high risk stunts. This all takes place without the assistance of padded mats or protective gear.
Been to a high school track meet lately? Even pole-vaulters that land on huge thick padding now wear helmets. So why is it that with all the advances in athletic ability, which provides more spectacular yet dangerous stunts, and improvements to athletic safety gear, that cheerleaders have been left unprotected?
In 2002 there were a half million cheerleaders in high school and college, and according to the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research, accidents among cheerleaders accounted for more than half of all catastrophic injuries that occur to female athletes. Between 1998 and 2007 there was a 42% increase in the number of cheer-related injuries in emergency rooms. Cheer is no longer a sideline activity, it is a sport and the athletes involved have all evolved like other sports. They are faster, stronger and more athletic. Training for cheer takes place 12 months a year.
There is little regulation at the high school level and the only way to curb accidents is to make existing guidelines mandatory at high school games and practices. It appears that these guidelines are being enforced, but that still leaves room for improvements. Maybe it's time to develop a cheer helmet, at least for the flyers on the team. To be effective, there would have to be mandatory enforcement. If left up to the cheerleaders they may avoid them to keep from getting helmet hair. After all they are high school girls.
Side Note: I would have included a picture for this topic, but I think an adult male taking a picture of high school cheerleaders would need to be able to prove he was a cheer parent or risk getting beat up by the crowd.
“Ponzi scheme” is a term that has been in the news heavily the last few weeks. Much to my surprise this does not involve getting both of the Tuscadero sisters to date the Fonz at the same time, which everyone knows is a “Fonzy scheme”.
A “Ponzi Scheme” is a type of fraudulent pyramid scheme named for Charles Ponzi because his operation took in so much money that he became a millionaire in just 6 months in 1920. A Ponzi scheme usually promises and initially gets unusually high returns in a short period. The scheme relies on an ever-increasing flow of money from investors with new money being used as payouts to earlier investors. It differs from a multi-level pyramid scheme in that the schemer acts as the central hub for all participants, but in a pyramid scheme the newest level of recruits are required to bring in still more new recruits in order to benefit directly.
Bernard Madoff is the reason for all the news about Ponzi schemes recently, as he has been accused of being the mastermind behind a fraud that is estimated to include more than $50 billion in losses. How is this guy not in jail? He gets to live in his mult-million dollar apartment on bail, even though he has been caught several times violating court orders to leave his assets alone. And, if anybody is a flight risk it has to be somebody with access to what he has.
The reasons Ponzi schemes all eventually fail are that either the schemers all vanish taking the remaining investments with them, legal authorities expose the scheme or the scheme collapses as investments slow due to promoters not being able to bring in enough new investments to payout the promised returns.
Why does a Ponzi scheme sound so much like our own Social Security System? It takes money from later investors (taxpayers) and pays off earlier, now retired taxpayers. Like a Ponzi scheme, Social Security also paid out unusually high returns. Charles Ponzi only promised returns of 40%, but initial recipients of Social Security achieved returns approaching 100,000%. Baby boomers have paid into this scheme their entire lives, including paying numerous increases to the required contributions, with no possibility of ever receiving the same returns of those retirees during the first 70 years. Also, the number new investors (taxpayers) can’t keep up with the number of baby boomers reaching retirement.
Democrats don’t consider this to be an imminent crisis. It’s to be expected from the same dimwits that have bought into this global warming scam. So far their solutions require higher payments from investors to keep the scheme afloat. They want to demand additional funds for a failing system. This same thinking could have kept Madoff’s scheme or Ponzi’s scheme going too. This same bailout happy, Democratic controlled Congress won’t think twice about writing a Chinese backed check to bailout their beloved fraud program.
Social Security needs to be blown up and reworked. I would prefer the option for individuals to opt out and plan for their own retirements. This Ponzi scheme has to go the way of the Fonz – retire it.
Thank you for your service to our country President Bush.
Obama supporters, although you are in the minority in Waukesha County, you are not alone. The Onion provides the following report.
What you should know by Tuesday morningBy Patrick McIlheran of the Journal Sentinel Still undecided? I can see how that happens. May I submit, then, the affirmative case for McCain?I’ve been making it in pieces in my print column in the Journal Sentinel for a few weeks now.Mind you, I don’t think John McCain is perfect -- far from it. He wasn’t my choice for president. But when it comes to November, one grades on a curve: I think he’d make a much better president than Barack Obama, and for many reasons.Among them are these:The two differ fundamentally on taxes. Obama says he’ll give tax cuts to 95% of all taxpayers -- but that includes the 40% who now pay no federal income tax. What he’s really proposing is to fully embrace federal taxation as a kind of a money pump to take money from those who earned it and redistribute it to those he thinks should have earned it.This is consistent with his past as a “community organizer,” stirring resentments for gain. McCain seems to have the main idea right: lower tax burdens when possible to encourage economic growth and without the aim of evening things up.This is still more important when you consider what liberals among congressional Democrats, convinced their day is dawning, are now toying with. Some chairmen of committees that govern retirement plans, for instance, are talking about acting on their enmity toward 401(k) plans. They’ve heard testimony about one think-tank plan to repeal such accounts’ tax advantage and, instead, pressure people into some government-run plan offering paltry but guaranteed returns.Obama’s not said a word, for or against, but when he talks about wanting to “spread the wealth around,” it suggests he’s got only a tenuous grasp on why it isn’t the wealth but is your wealth or my wealth or Joe the Plumber’s wealth. If he doesn’t grasp that distinction, and if his party controls the White House as well as Congress, would Obama be a check on the kinds of whack redistributionist schemes Congress hatches? Probably not.Not that McCain would mire Washington in gridlock. In fact, I think the signs are that he’s much better at being reasonable rather than dogmatic. Take a look, for instance, at how he broke with his own side in the war on terror to fault the Bush administration on interrogations. Note, also, that this man who was tortured by the regime now ruling Vietnam has for decades been one of the foremost advocates of improved diplomatic and trade relations with it because he believes that would be to our benefit, regardless of his feelings.By contrast, Obama, when given a chance to find some bridge over a yawning fissure in American politics, rejected it utterly. He opposed, when in the Illinois legislature, a measure to offer legal protection to infants who survive botched abortions. His explanations on this were evasive, and in the end, he rejected even a version offering all the protections for a right to abortion that the federal version of the law contained – a federal law that won unanimous support in the U.S. Senate, even from staunch defenders of abortion’s legality. He could not transcend partisanship when he had a chance.I think McCain is far better on health care: His plan, which spreads the current tax benefits for those with generous employers more equitably, does nothing at all to discourage employers who want to go on offering health coverage – and yet it makes room for letting markets start to work again in health insurance.Obama, on the other hand, talks of letting people keep their doctors, but the fact is that, by mandating expenses, his proposal would force more and more people into a government-sponsored plan by making private insurance too costly. Obama’s plan enshrines the principle that everyone’s care must be paid for by someone else, exactly the mechanism that has made health care too costly, while McCain’s makes room for innovations that might bring prices under control.On war, Obama touts his consequence-free decision before he attained national office to oppose the toppling of Saddam Hussein. In this, he differs not just from McCain but from many leading liberals in his own party.But he’s touting the wrong decision: Obama was wrong and McCain right on the really important call, whether to give up when in 2006 America look beaten by al-Qaida in Iraq and various others seeking to undo our liberation of that country. Obama called the surge wrong and said it wouldn’t work. McCain called it necessary and said it would. Now, of course, it turns out it has worked, something even Obama reluctantly concedes. And while the decision to go to war was one on which thoughtful minds at that time could disagree, the question on the surge was simpler: Does America end wars by accepting a loss?The correct answer is no. Accepting a loss leads to more Americans getting killed in the long run. On the surge, McCain showed he knew the correct answer: You end the war by winning it.But, say critics, America isn’t really at war, for it’s asked for no sacrifice from most people. Obama would do that, surely?Not by what the candidate is saying. Again, take a look at the tax pitch. Obama keeps hammering on how he’s going to give a tax “cut” to practically everyone, to be paid for by the Monopoly Man.Only this is nonsense. His promises far outrun the underlying numbers. McCain’s don’t tote up, either, but McCain, at least, can name federal programs he’d slow or eliminate to cope with hard times. He has decades of being a cheapskate with federal spending, something Obama shows no sign of. When it comes to shared sacrifice, Obama is saying it will be someone else, not you, who do any of it. McCain has a much more realistic take on the straits our country is in.That’s because he’s the grown-up in the race. His experience in federal office far exceeds Obama’s experience in pretty much everything put together, and this has produced far better judgment.McCain’s critics are reduced to saying that Sarah Palin is plainly unacceptable – though, of course, even she has a more credible resume when it comes to executive experience than Obama does – or that McCain was “erratic” during the mortgage meltdown. Certainly, McCain said some goofy things about firing Chris Cox, but in the end, he and Obama ended up in much the same place, backing the bailout, only Obama spent a week utterly frozen up. The difference was that he looks graceful frozen up, as he looks graceful in most things.Looking graceful is nice, and some people backing Obama seem to be hoping that that will carry him until he grows into the role. I say otherwise: Experience is better, and with McCain, it means you get growing is accomplished.The best speech McCain delivered was at his nomination, and its heart was his story of war imprisonment. What started sounding like a boast turned out to be its opposite. McCain told of how his captors broke him. This shamed him, he said, but also took away his youthful self-regard. He learned, he said, "the limits of my selfish independence," to understand that "I wasn't my own man anymore; I was my country's." Those are the words of a man who has had time to think and comprehend the meaning of freedom, something Obama may someday achieve – but something he plainly hasn’t yet had the time to do.Note, please, that I have only sketched reasons very quickly here: I do hope that, if you’re undecided, you follow those links to where I make the arguments more fully.
Or you can read what the Wall Street Journal says this morning: That in the end, Obama’s appeals of hope and change amount to mere gauze, a gamble unsupported by much of anything.So, as you head to the polls today, please give yourself enough time in case your polling place is crowded. Be patient, because what you are doing is important. Our country needs John McCain, and John McCain needs the support of those that have taken their time or have had a difficult time deciding on a candidate.
Thank you for your consideration!
McCain = Solid Experienced Leadership
McCain = Commander In Chief Ready
McCain = Proven his dedication to this country, with hardship, sacrifice and public service.
McCain = Works well with Democrats and Republicans and has their respect.
Obama = Nothing - Just watch.
The right kind of change can only come from one candidate. Help yourself and your country! Vote for John McCain tomorrow, Tuesday, November 4th.
The question is: In 4 years will you feel safer than today?
Answer yes, by electing John McCain on November 4th.
John McCain, along with Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, has been a champion of Campaign Finance Reform. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as McCain-Feingold for its sponsors, was the first major overhaul of campaign finance laws in almost 30 years.
In 2007 Barack Obama and John McCain both promised to accept public financing if the other party's nominee did. McCain, being a man of honor (how's that working out for you John?), stuck to that promise. Obama deceived the public and broke that promise.
It's easy to see why Obama makes himself out to be a liar; once he realized how much money it would take to defeat more qualified candidates, he had no real choice but to accept the money. Due to the limitations on spending from public financing, Obama is outspending McCain by about 7-1. He promises to outspend McCain as president by an even higher number. Can you say higher taxes everyone, despite another soon to be broken promise by Obama.
Did McCain make a mistake by sticking to his promise and following up on his beliefs that campaign finance ought to be a fair fight. It's possible that it might cost him the election, but not his integrity. This is something that he believed strongly in and has fought for, once again against his own party's wishes, and he stayed true to himself.
What about all this money that the Obama campaign has collected? Is it all legal? Probably not. In this day of Internet donations, prepaid debit/credit cards and an unwillingness to verify the validity of these donations by his campaign, too much opportunity exists for illegal money to be flowing in. The campaign is fond of saying that many of its contributions come from millions of small donors, but what it doesn't say is that a greater percentage of funds are coming from those contributing more than $200. Obama will also have received more than twice as many contributions of over $1,000 than any candidate in history.
What are they doing with all that money? Spending more money on negative campaigning than any candidate in history.
With an ad spending disparity of 7 - 1 and an opposition party incumbent in the White House with an extremely low opinion rating, why is it that polls show Obama with leads of only 2%-11%? Frequency of message is extremely important in selling something and Obama has a clear advantage. The answer lies in the fact that the product and the message are not strong enough and without the extraordinary amounts of cash, Obama would stand no chance.
What will be the future of campaign finance reform? There will still be a few attempts to fix it, but since Democrats were the ones screaming for it before and one of their own showed everybody what could be accomplished with private money, it will mostly disappear. Obama has caused me to change my mind on one thing; I am now in favor of eliminating the public financing route and applaud Americans for supporting their political beliefs with their dollars. The one thing that will be needed is to make certain that we can have more checks in place to keep out the corruption.
I just finished watching the Obama infomercial and I have to say that he has a lot to learn from Ron Popeil. Frankly, I think the country would do better listening and watching Ron get people pumped up about his ovens and food dehydrators.
Here's the short version of what Obama's selling. "My plan is to spend over a trillion dollars for new programs. Pay for it? Did I say no tax increases if you make less than $250,000? That was a republican smear that they spread. What I said was no tax increases if you make less that $250." The rest of his spiel was more of his same lies, distortions and not quite truths. Some of it would have been comical, if I didn't realize that there are some people out there gullible enough to buy it.
If ABC had carried this they could have called it Extreme Makeover: The Marxist Government Edition.
Hey Obama's in good company in doing the infomercial. Nixon used to do these.
Here are the reasons I'd vote Democrat in this election.
H/T Charlie Sykes
- Democrats Promoting Rush? (16)
- Happy Stimulation Day! (19)
- The Never Ending Campaign (13)
- Stimulating Obama Fear-Mongering (6)
- Super Bowl and Ads 2009 (5)
- Obama Knows Not Bipartisanship (11)
- Super Bowl Ad Preview (4)
- What's In This Stimulus Bill? What Isn't? (2)
- Cheerleader Helmets? (8)
- Ponzi Schemes and Social Security (8)
- More What the ? posts