-
A Lebanese Charm Offensive
January 12, 2013 | 12 comments
-
Softness at the NSC
November 26, 2012 | 20 comments
-
Anti-Business as Usual
June 20, 2011 | 62 comments
-
National Public Internet
June 14, 2011 | 31 comments
-
This Property Is Condemned
June 13, 2011 | 25 comments
Washington Prowler
The Great Regrouping
Health-Care Leninists’ two steps forward, one step back. Also: The renewed anti-conservative threat to the Internet.
THE CO-OP FALLBACK
The White House on Sunday was pushing the notion that it was
willing to abandon the tent pole policy in its health care reform
proposal — the so-called “public option,” more commonly
understood to be socialized medicine — in favor of the national
health insurance co-op proposal put forward by Sen. Kent
Conrad. But some White House and Health and Human
Services aides say supporters of the “public option” shouldn’t
abandon hope.
Because while some media presented this as a victory for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who protested Obamacare, and leftists and progressives were angered by the apparent waving of the white flag by the Obama Administration, some administration insiders privately believe they can achieve the goal of the “public option” through the co-op plan’s implementation.
“The federal government would have to seed money into the co-op program,” says a White House source. “Depending on who you talk to, it’s between $6 billion and $10 billion in funding, along with a congressionally mandated and administration designated board to oversee the co-op at least initially.”
According to some of the more progressive members of the administration, this board, which would set the policies for the co-op plan’s implementation and operation, along with the strict requirements for financial stability, might be a back-door way to “eventually,” as another administration put it, allow the federal government to take over the co-op and transition it to a plan more closely resembling the “public option.”
“It might not happen as fast as we would want, but based on the challenges the astroturfers and insurance industry have put in front of us for the full plan as the President has laid out, the co-op plan probably isn’t going to achieve what Conrad and its supporters want,” says an aide to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “The minute this co-op runs into financial difficulty with low reserves” — some estimates believe the co-op could become the third-largest health-care insurance provider in the country — “it’s the government that’s going to have to bail it out, and then we’re looking at the clear path to the public option.”
NOTHING BUT NET NEUTRALITY
Former President Bill Clinton spoke to what might best be
described as a lukewarm audience at the Netroots Nation
conference in Pittsburgh, Pa., last Thursday at the David L.
Lawrence convention center. Clinton was largely reviled by the
progressive movement by the end of his two terms, and the
progressives by and large opposed the candidacy of Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008, supporting
Barack Obama instead. The crowd in the
convention center was largely respectful, and gave him partial
standing ovations when he spoke of progressive positions, though
he was heckled about his support for the “don’t ask, don’t tell”
policy he implemented, and he addressed the issue specifically.
Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett received similar treatment during her presentation on Saturday morning. She was heckled for the Obama Administration’s decision to block release of photos that purport to show torture of jihadist terrorists.
While many of the attendees insisted they remained upbeat about Obama, they were less hopeful of the political environment they were seeing as a result of the administration’s difficulties with health care reform legislation and Senate Democrats’ seeming refusal to push the House version of cap and trade legislation.
“If we can’t get everything we want out of health care reform and climate change, then we will have to take what we can and hope that we can get ‘net neutrality’ legislation passed. To get something on all three issues done in the same year, would be remarkable victories for us,” said one attendee.
Yes, net neutrality. While the health care debate and fight over cap and trade and stimulus spending have garnered the bulk of the American public’s attention, some conservatives believe the Obama administration and Democrats’ attempts to regulate the Internet deserves equal attention, given the grave threat they represent to free speech and conservatives’ ability to organize and mobilize politically.
During the last day the House was in session before leaving for its August recess, Rep. Ed Markey’s staff introduced HR 3458, the so-called “Internet Freedom Preservation Act,” which would essentially enable government control of the Internet, treating the networks as a government-managed utility. (For more information about “net neutrality,” read this interview that one of the key “net neutrality” supporters gave to a Canadian socialist publication.) The Markey legislation is considered the last piece of what some conservatives consider to be Democrat and progressive attempts to control the Internet and limit citizens’ ability to use the networks to organize and oppose their agenda.
The bill was introduced the same week it was revealed that the Obama Commerce Department was demanding from the phone and cable companies highly detailed data about private citizens’ Internet and broadband connections as part of plans of “map” broadband networks across the country.
It was also revealed the White House had put in place a plan to collect email addresses of citizens who opposed the administration’s health reform proposal, and then last week we learned that the Obama administration had negotiated deals with companies like Google and YouTube to collect and provide citizens’ personal data, such as Internet addresses, when they visit government websites. Within days of this new policy being revealed, U.S. citizens who had not signed up for any information about the Obama health care bill received e-mails from the White House and Obama adviser David Axelrod touting Obamacare.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (86) | Leave a comment
More Articles by The Prowler
More Articles From Washington Prowler
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/17/the-great-regrouping
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Rocco| 8.17.09 @ 6:49AM
I would still keep my powder dry. I don't trust these gangsta's any further than I could throw them. Typical Marxist tactic - a half of a loaf today, the whole loaf tomorrow. We cannot afford to become complacent with these jerks.
S.L. Toddard| 8.17.09 @ 7:03AM
"Health-care Leninism." That gives one the impression that the author is against "socialism" generally, and socialistic health care specifically, which is odd, because he seems also to support the Republicans.
I've asked AmSpec readers this question elsewhere and I'll ask it again here: do you support a party that wishes to eliminate socialist programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or do you support the socialist-program-loving Republicans? Because if you support the GOP - which supports all of these socialist programs including the single-payer socialist health-care program "Medicare" - but oppose Obama's plan on the grounds that it is "socialist", then that either makes you a hypocrite or a liar.
GOP supporters actively support socialism - that really is an inarguable fact, as the GOP actively maintains socialist government programs. I, of course, oppose the socialism of the GOP along with the socialism of the Democrats.
Can anyone else here make the same claim, or are you all de facto socialist hypocrites?
Melvin| 8.17.09 @ 7:05AM
Obama knew full well that he was going to lose out on the single payer issue, that was the perceived intent of looking diplomatic by conceding defeat on it.
Rahm Emanuel doesn't concead defeat people, he gets even and attacks in another direction leaving carnage behind him.
drudge ette obama| 8.17.09 @ 7:10AM
Something really stinks here. And it isn't the fish.
The Google/Youtube deal referred to in the final paragraph leaves me incredulous. The White House/Axelrod Email Scandal (WHEAS) is ready for full light of day.
Google was bad enough when it agreed to censorship in China. Anything for a buck. Or anything for control. Wait until Georgia Soros buys Google, or a like-minded consortium. I like what Google offers for free, but I think it's time to make a change.
El Rey| 8.17.09 @ 7:22AM
No to ObamaCare in any way, shape or form.
Make the Dems pay for pushing ObamaCare. Make 2010 a repeat of 1994.
JP| 8.17.09 @ 7:38AM
"I've asked AmSpec readers this question elsewhere and I'll ask it again here: do you support a party that wishes to eliminate socialist programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or do you support the socialist-program-loving Republicans"
SL,
Medicare costs will soon go over the $1 trillion mark, and Boomers have barely begun to retire. Medicare itself is due to go bankrupt in 8 years. It matters not if one likes or dislikes the program; there simply isn't enough workers with the income to support it. Social Security isn't far behind.
What is ironic is the fact that the very people who most strongly support these expensive public entitlements are the also the same people who support the radical abortion and population control programs.
When Bismarck fist instituted public pensions and universal health care in 1883, the German female averaged about 5.7 children per generation. That is, there would be almost 6 workers per 2 retirees per generation. Today in the US, the most liberal areas of the country average about 1.7 children per female. The nation on the whole averages anywhere from 1.9 children per female to 2.2 . Do the math. If you want generous public entitlements have lots and lots of children. How many women today would be willing to have that many children?
Alice Moore| 8.17.09 @ 7:49AM
To S.L. Toddard.. I wouldn't accuse the Republicans of being Socialist. They are like the Democrats, career politicians. The three programs you mentioned are Third Rails. A politician who even tries modest reform(GWB 2005-Social Security) can lose their career. Adding to the programs like Medicare Part D is a net political winner(believe me I'm not happy).
So the enemy are not the 2 parties but an ongoing majority of the American people. I think that reform will come when the entire US system collapses a la the Soviet Union 1991
Robert Rosencrans| 8.17.09 @ 8:33AM
The political elite have created a non-sustainable system of giveaways based on holding onto political power and accomplished by intergenerational redistribution of wealth.
Aaron| 8.17.09 @ 8:46AM
Oh I cant wait to see what Princess Pelosi will have to say about this. She may have to invoke the wonder twin powers of her sister Princess Boxer (who has been suspiciously quiet). I'm willing to bet she blew a gasket yesterday watching all of this unfold, can you just imagine being in the same house with her?
The first phone call she made: "Harry! WTF! You better get control of your people, I will not fail... I had this locked up and its your peoples fault. DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM! I'm #3, I will own you, if you don't fix this... call Barry, call your faggot brother Barney, call ACORN, enough with the damn train already... Don't make me fly down there!
Aaron| 8.17.09 @ 8:49AM
Robert, Thats the simplest, most accurate way of stating the problem. I'll simply add, that there is no fix due to continued holding of power.
Pingback| 8.17.09 @ 9:08AM
Bioethike » Blog Archive » Public option Ping-Pong a stealth move? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
bill | 8.17.09 @ 9:13AM
Never, ever trust the people who lust for power over you. This most recent concession is nothing to get to worked up about. I am most certain that alternative schemes have been in the works for a long time- all aimed at bringing more and more people into the collective. Narcissists will not accept anything less than adulation and when they perceive an affront, they look for new ways to coerce the victim into surrender.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.17.09 @ 9:17AM
S.L.Toddard Says: “The GOP actively maintains socialist government programs. I, of course, oppose the socialism of the GOP”,.. (Well good for you!! You oppose it)
Alright!!,.. I’m going to bite here!!,.. I’m going to regret it!!,.. but I’m going to bite here anyway?,.. What would you (S.L. Toddard) do about it?,.. if you were the GOP?,. trying to defeat the Liberals,.. in the next round of elections,.. while not pissing off anybody receiving any of these entitlements?,.. IE: Social Security, Medicare,.. so that you don’t lose each and everyone of them to the Democrats?,.. and therefore lose the election!!,.. Would you just cut it off tomorrow (Social Security)?,.. just not mail out the checks this month?,… and then refuse to answer the phone,.. when everybody calls in?,.. screaming and complaining!!,.. it easy to oppose something!,.. I oppose lots of things,.. so what?,.. I oppose a lot of your posts!!,.. like I said?,.. who cares?,.. but?,. . what the hell would you do about it?,.. those Old Socialism battles are over now (Social Security),.. and those battle were lost!!,.. a long, long time ago,.. and we’re paying the price for it today.
But right now?,.. We need to stop this latest incarnation (Obamacare),.. to add to the long list of entitlements,.. and then maybe (maybe!!) if we win this round?,.. then we can return to the problems of yesterday,.. and start cleaning house like we should have done a long time ago,.. but what are we supposed to do S.L. Toddard?,.. Vote for third party candidates instead?,… What would you do?,.. let’s hear it!!,.. or do we just all oppose it?,.. you must have the answer!!
Dustoff| 8.17.09 @ 10:20AM
From Canada..... looks like problems.
********************************
SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.
Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press
Curly Smith| 8.17.09 @ 10:39AM
S.L. Toddard asks "do you support a party that wishes to eliminate socialist programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or do you support the socialist-program-loving Republicans?"
Now that's the funniest thing that I've read in a long time. No, not the socialism part because Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are inarguably both socialist and unconstitutional but that the GOP leadership is (a) Conservative and (b) courageous enough to stand on those Conservative Principles and oppose the unconstitutional expansion of the Federal Government.
What NY Times article have you been smoking that makes you think that the GOP leadership is either Conservative or Courageous? Were you abducted by aliens during the last 3 election cycles and miss the pompous pandering poltroons? Did you miss the obvious lack of support that George W. Bush had from the GOP leadership when he proposed privatizing Social Security (which was supported by Conservatives), did you miss the GOP loss of both the Senate and the House as they hemorrhaged Conservative voters over amnesty for illegal aliens, the prescription drug add-on to Medicare, and the unprecedented expansion of the Federal Government?
Conservatives presently have zero representation in Washington and unless that changes there will be zero Republicans in Washington in the very near future.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.09 @ 11:00AM
Curly Smith (et al)
Actually we don't have ZERO representation in DC.
IE: Senator Coburn, OK.....Rep John Shadeg,AZ...Rep Paul Ryan, WI, and most notably for me...Senator DeMint, SC.
I finished reading his book yesterday...WOW WOW, AND WOW!
We can get behind this guy!
I like him!
I highly commend his new book (2009) "Saving Freedom".
It is a must read for all who want to turn our country around. Amazon.com has it.
Still, Curly, your point is well taken. When most congress critters are "bringing home the bacon" to their district or State, and a few say "no thank you"....it is pretty hard to get elected....or grow to seniority in the senate and house.
Phillip Dampier | 8.17.09 @ 11:00AM
There are some legitimate debates over the issues of health care and how to best address the climate change matter, but the opposition laid out to Net Neutrality in this piece is right out of the X Files.
Net Neutrality is one of those issues that honestly isn't a "right" or "left" issue, which is why a lot of conservative and liberal groups have come to agreement that nobody - not the government or corporate providers, should be messing around with legal content placed online. I would not want a service provider demanding additional money from any group, be it the ACLU or the John Birch Society, in order to assure equal access to their respective content.
What Net Neutrality guarantees is that service providers cannot monetize an Internet that treats some content better than other content, based on how much money is paid. One of the founding principles of the Internet is that all traffic is treated essentially equally. A web page is a web page. A file transfer is a file transfer. An online application is an online application. If the content or activity is legal, it should be allowed to flow freely irrespective of who owns that content, without foe or favor.
AT&T, among others, sought a different system where they wanted to be paid for what was starting to look uncomfortably like a protection racket.
'You wouldn't want anything to happen to your website traffic, would you? Of course, not... your traffic can't just flow across our pipes for free,' was essentially the attitude of that, and a few other major national providers.
For a price, your traffic would be guaranteed safe passage to subscribers (who 'ironically' were paying a monthly fee to gain access to online content, without the provider messing around with it.)
This piece attempts a stretch no yoga master would attempt: legislation that preserves and protects content, regardless of its ideological bent, is somehow representative of a threat to conservative organization and ideas.
That is baseless.
Indeed, the meme that Net Neutrality represents "government control" over the Internet has been manufactured by astroturfers like The Heartland Institute, and others that often have a direct financial relationship with the commercial providers that oppose Net Neutrality for financial reasons. Indeed, this piece directly links to the interview with McChesney that the aforementioned Heartland Institute was overdramatizing late last week.
The suspicions about the broadband mapping project are completely out of the ball park here. This is not a government conspiracy to spy on citizens. It's a mapping project to determine who exactly has broadband service, what type and what speed, and who has been left behind in a broadband backwater. That information is important to direct any stimulus funding into underserved/unserved areas of this country so that rural America is not left behind. Commercial providers don't want to cough up specific information because it illustrates that this country's broadband networks are undercompetitive -- too slow and charging too much.
There is a problem with broadband mapping and it's not from the government -- it's from the providers themselves who have direct involvement in some of the groups formed to capture some of the $200 million in mapping grants not only to line their own pockets, but to skew the map data in ways that assure stimulus money ends up flowing their way and not towards any potential competitors. That's potentially hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars flushed into private industry pockets to preserve the status quo - usually a duopoly of broadband providers serving most Americans.
There is a deliberate effort among some corporate interests to manufacture an artificial link between pro-consumer, non-partisan Net Neutrality with opposition to conservative causes and interests, and nothing could be further from the truth.
Net Neutrality was borne as a response to service providers' own bad behavior, and to ensure that as long as content is legal, the level playing field of ideas, accessible to all, should be protected at all costs.
The Internet -- for the first time in a long time -- makes it possible for any citizen to present ideas to be judged on their merits and not on how much money that citizen has to blast those ideas into the public consciousness. That's something I think conservatives, moderates, and liberals should all agree is worth preserving.
Echoing the sentiments of astroturfers paid to present industry-friendly positions wrapped in artificial cloaks of conservative ideology is against the interests of your own readers.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.09 @ 11:03AM
Curly
I cannot over look my Rep. Culberson, or my Senator Cornyn, TX I faxed both of them an attaboy(again) last week.
S.L. Toddard| 8.17.09 @ 11:13AM
"What NY Times article have you been smoking that makes you think that the GOP leadership is either Conservative or Courageous?"
I'm going to explain this to you, because it seems you have difficulty with reading comprehension. I asked: "do you support a party that wishes to eliminate socialist programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, *or* do you support the socialist-program-loving Republicans?" I said "GOP supporters actively support socialism". I said "the GOP actively maintains socialist government programs". I said I "oppose the socialism of the GOP".
Honestly, how you inferred that I believe the GOP is "conservative" after repeatedly noted the opposite is quite beyond me.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.09 @ 11:17AM
Hi Phillip
I sincerely hope your analysis is correct. BUT!
I surely picked up on some of your communist "code words" in that analysis.: "astroturfers", "stimulous spending",
...and once again...the evil old corporations trying to make a profit...
If I indeed have misunderstood you, I apologise, BUT!
LEAVE THE DAMNED GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT. WE CONSUMERS CAN MAKE CHOICES BETWEEN THE EVIL CORPORATIONS THAT GIVE US THE BEST VALUE.
S.L. Toddard| 8.17.09 @ 11:28AM
Lullabys, Legends and Lies - you're going to need to edit and resubmit that query. That presentation is atrocious. End a sentence with a period followed by a double-space.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.09 @ 11:34AM
S.L.
You will never comprehend it, but I am going to 'splain the problem Republicans have. Many here will grasp the truth.
When on any issue...the Demorat promises to "bring home the bacon"...and you do not, it makes for tough election wins.
THAT IS THE TOTAL CONTEXT OF THE TERM "POLITICIZING" an issue.
Once ANY issue becomes a political decision, ie: buying votes in one's district, "Let's get ours" becomes the vote changer.
The truly frightening part of all of this to me are the numbers and/or percentages of Americans already dependent on government "subsidies" of countless descriptions.
Folks, there are already lots of hooks in us, whether we are farmers, or whatevers...and sometimes we don't even recognize the hooks in the worms.
Curtis Rasmussen| 8.17.09 @ 11:35AM
"Is Obama and the House loaded with marxists or fascists?"
Nobody is going to reply to your loaded questions, S.L. Toaddard, just like answering the loaded question above smears our leadership one way or the other.
gnawbone| 8.17.09 @ 11:43AM
SL:
Hello.... we're all waiting to hear your solution?
Let's hear one that will actually work in this society.
Don't have one, do ya?
.... you're just a bitcher. Go stand in a closet and have a conversation with the smartest man in the room.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.09 @ 12:00PM
Hi gnawbone. Welcome.
(I like your moniker by the way.)
Dr. Gregory Garamoni | 8.17.09 @ 12:01PM
Abandoning a government-run plan is an olive branch--good place to start.
But we at Doctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine need more than an olive branch!
We need a whole olive tree to silence our concerns.
Health care reform still threatens to violate the individual rights of patients, doctors, and business owners on a massive scale unprecedented in our country's history. Health care reform has not yet addressed crony capitalism's protectionism for trial lawyers, health care professionals, and insurance companies.
The final bill must not include any provisions that: (1) force people to buy health insurance; (2) force employers to provide health insurance for employees; (3) force some groups (wealthy, business owners, soda-drinkers, etc.) to pay for the health insurance of other groups; (4) force future generations of tax payers to pay for the health care of the previous generations; and (5) force insurance companies to write policies that offer coverage for specific conditions.
The final bill must include: (a) tort reform to minimize frivolous malpractice lawsuits; (b) ERISSA reform so that insurance companies are no longer protected from lawsuits and can be held accountable for their fraudulent nastiness; (c) provisions that allow individuals and small businesses to purchase insurance across state boundaries; (d) incentives for individuals to have portable insurance coverage; (e) incentives for individuals to buy, and insurance companies to sell, policies that permanently cover preexisting conditions; and (f) provisions that allow health care professionals to practice in all 50 states without having to be licensed in each and every state.
Health care reform should proceed by eliminating barriers to competition and by providing for tort reform--all without violating the rights of patients, doctors, and business owners.
Dr. Gregory Garamoni
Doctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine
http://www.doctorsonstrike.com
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.09 @ 12:17PM
Doctor Garimoni
Splendidly summarized, sir!
May I quote you on my own site?
Best regards
Michael Tomlinson| 8.17.09 @ 12:40PM
What the hell is "progressive" about any neo-fascist Democrat? Considering this administration is sympathetic to terminating the lives of seniors and other undesirables (Justice Ginsburg seems to know who these people are) it would seem having more Americans denied medical care would be the goal.
Dr Garamoni has some wisdom Republicans need to incorporate into any half-baked co-opt deal. Without TORT reform their should be NO Republican support for "health care reform." Sometimes saying NO to childish DemocRATS is good for the country's health.
Finally, where is the ACLU and others who were worried President Bush was undermining liberty by "spying" on terrorists and their supporters? Obama and Democrats want to hamstring the 1st Amendment and spy on honest citizens, but nary a people from the so-called defenders of "civil liberties."
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.17.09 @ 1:29PM
S.L.Toddard: About my recent inquiry to you? Excuse me, but I am not an English Teacher, which might explain my very bad use of grammar and punctuation. What I was trying to ask you about though, before you took a personnel shot at me for my style of writing was, please tell us about your own original solutions to all our National problems. We all want to hear about them from you. Now I don’t think you’ll have any real solutions though, just more complaints, about everything in general. And how you always oppose everything that comes out of Washington D.C. So if the Democrats suck, and the Republicans suck, and nobody should vote for either Party anymore, how do you expect anything to change at all? Should we vote for a third party candidate instead, or just roll over and die? I want to hear about your solution.
Alright there you go!!,.. I tried to write like everybody else does?,.. but it’s very difficult for me,.. I write the way I talk,.. one run on sentence after another,.. with a lot of Comma’s and Periods mixed in between,.. Sorry about that,.. but this is how I write!!,.. so I patiently await your answers to every problem in America!!,.. although the only thing you’ve seemed to fix so far?,.. was the last paragraph I wrote,.. Good Job!!
S.L. Toddard| 8.17.09 @ 1:54PM
"Hello.... we're all waiting to hear your solution?"
How would I know what you're waiting for? What an odd question to ask me.
In case the answer to your odd question is "yes" (again though you will have to answer that yourself) the solution is thus:
Support *only* candidates and office holders that are conservative. If you do not, then you are a de facto liberal/socialist. That means never, ever voting for a candidate who does not pledge and/or actively work to end these socialist programs (and all socialist programs), seal the border (which would mean building and guarding a border wall across the entire mexican border), and drastically reduce federal spending to a literal fraction of what it is while reducing taxes proportionately to create a balanced budget. That will certainly mean depriving the GOP of your vote, and voting 3rd party, or writing in candidates, or leaving certain portions of your ballot blank, and in the short term will mean costing the socialist GOP your vote. Should en0ugh GOP voters do this - i.e. become conservative - then to win elections the GOP must needs abandon their socialist policies and become a conservative party as they were half a century and more ago.
Truth to Power| 8.17.09 @ 1:58PM
Lullabys, Legends and Lies,
Don't appologize to crazy people. Your post was understandable which is a lot better than S.L. Toddard's average post. I think that you were right. He will make you regret it. If you are not prepared to flatter him you will be in for a long afternoon of responding to his inner voices. You were right to notice that he always wails about Republicans without ever putting anything forward worth supporting. His only to solution is to take us back to 1798 just before we entered our first undeclard war.
S.L. Toddard| 8.17.09 @ 2:03PM
"What I was trying to ask you about though, before you took a personnel shot at me for my style of writing was, please tell us about your own original solutions to all our National problems"
It seems there are two problems people are primarily worried about in this discussion:
1. How to return the Republicans to power
and
2. How to return our country to a conservative American system of government based on Liberty, individual responsibility and the Rule of Law
So long as the GOP is a big gov't socialist party, Problem #1 isn't really a "problem", is it?
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.09 @ 2:08PM
Toddarddddddd
In case you were having a siezure earlier, I will repeat myself:
S.L.
You will never comprehend it, but I am going to 'splain the problem Republicans have. Many here will grasp the truth.
When on any issue...the Demorat promises to "bring home the bacon"...and you do not, it makes for tough election wins.
THAT IS THE TOTAL CONTEXT OF THE TERM "POLITICIZING" an issue.
Once ANY issue becomes a political decision, ie: buying votes in one's district, "Let's get ours" becomes the vote changer.
The truly frightening part of all of this to me are the numbers and/or percentages of Americans already dependent on government "subsidies" of countless descriptions.
Folks, there are already lots of hooks in us, whether we are farmers, or whatevers...and sometimes we don't even recognize the hooks in the worms.
S.L. Toddard| 8.17.09 @ 2:31PM
Yes, Old Texican, I understand that many Americans will vote for whichever candidate promises to bring more of other people's tax money ("bring home the bacon") to their particular state, and that this makes it hard for conservatives to run against them. There are many ways to counter that tactic - the most obvious of which is to tell Americans that rather than "bringing home the bacon", a conservative candidate pledges to allow people to keep their own bacon and do with it what they will.
I've never said conservatism is an easy sell, and I understand why the GOP has utterly abandoned conservatism - because they care more about acquiring and retaining power than they do about America, and it is easier to sell big gov't solutions than Liberty to a slothful, servile people. That is no excuse for any conservative aiding and abetting an anti-conservative agenda though. And it is certainly no excuse for those who actively support socialism with their vote to turn around and condemn socialism when it is perpetrated by the other party.
You people must ask yourselves: If the GOP feels it must abandon conservatism and embrace socialism to get itself elected, then why is it so important to you that it get elected? Why is your loyalty to an un-conservative party rather than to your own principles?
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.17.09 @ 2:37PM
Truth to Power: I’m a sucker for his type of posts (S.L. Toddard),.. I think because his “Type” end up making me look like I’m the level headed “Type”,.. which I am not!!,.. yeah but you’re right!!,.. I’m only feeding into his ego by reacting to him,.. although I must say?,.. as much as I hate to admit this?,.. I do agree with a few of his ideas,.. from time to time!!,.. I just wish he wouldn’t act so self righteous all the time,.. like he’s better than everybody here,.. why do you think we come to this site S.L.?,.. to join in on the discussion,.. not to be talked down to,.. but voting for Third Party candidates?,.. Come on now really!!,.. it’s just like shooting yourself in the foot,.. it hurts a lot!!,.. and you get nowhere fast afterwards!!,.. Remember Ross Perot?,.. well I voted for him,.. and ended up putting Bill Clinton into office,.. Oh Great!!,.. Bush 41 wasn’t that bad,.. I should’ve voted for him instead of Slick Willie!!,.. but I can’t take back my vote now,.. so the Third Party thing to me, Umm?,.. I don’t ever want to do that again,.. there’s got to be another avenue of approach for us?,.. we’ve got to drag the Office Holding Republicans to a De-tox Center or something?,.. and let them withdraw from their Socialist Fixes!!
S.L. Toddard| 8.17.09 @ 2:38PM
Another tactic, Old T, is to embrace the 10th Amendment - to embrace the principles of subsidiarity and self-government. There is truly no reason whatsoever that Massachusetts and New York shouldn't have their social-democratic paradises, while Montana and Colorado retain more American systems of government. That, I should think, would not be so hard a sell - that each sovereign, free and independent state govern itself in the way its citizens see best fit.
S.L. Toddard| 8.17.09 @ 2:42PM
"Remember Ross Perot?,.. well I voted for him,.. and ended up putting Bill Clinton into office,.. Oh Great!!"
I'm sorry, friend, but you did the right thing. Had you and others like you stuck to your principles, the GOP would have had to come around and (re)embraced them to get your vote back.
George W Bush is the living, breathing proof that voting for the lesser of two evils only produces more evil. Neither he nor his compatriots in the House and Senate were "conservative" by any definition. So voting for the lesser of two evils in that case got you eight years of big spending big government, of open borders, of fiscal irresponsibility and defecit spending, the failure of which opened the door to Barack Obama.
S.L. Toddard| 8.17.09 @ 2:50PM
"we’ve got to drag the Office Holding Republicans to a De-tox Center or something?,.. and let them withdraw from their Socialist Fixes!!"
Yes - precisely! Deny them your vote, and detox them from their addiction to power by denying them their fix. Demonstrate that they will only get their fix by embracing a conservative agenda.
And yes, it will hurt in the short term. But it will hurt far less if you stop thinking of the GOP as "your" team. They're not. YOUR team consists of the farmers and store owners, the bar tenders and mechanics, the neighbors and friends - the hardworking Americans who fill the entire map of America outside of the cities. Vote to give THEM power, not the corrupt, power-mad Republicans who are only conservative when shilling for your vote.
mark| 8.17.09 @ 3:10PM
SL TODDARD:
Yes, I'm against all of the above, thank you very much.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.17.09 @ 3:28PM
The worst thing in the World for someone who’s addict to something?,.. is to have an enabler around!!,.. your right about that!!,.. but Holy Crap!!,.. if we follow your advice and ignore the GOP in the next Presidential election,.. we’ll just hand the next Presidential Election right back to President Obama,.. Ouch!!,.. so if we need to wean the Republicans off the entitlement bandwagon?,.. we’ve got to teach them this lesson in the 2010 midterm elections,.. it can’t wait any longer than that!!,.. The Republicans will get the message after they fail to pick up any seats!!,.. but the House and Senate?,.. they will remain in the hands of the Democrats and Pelosi until 2012,.. Double Ouch!!,.. but you might be right about this?,.. maybe we’ve just got to let the Republicans go completely Cold Turkey for a change!!,.. the MSM will take it as an endorsement for the President’s agenda,.. but it won’t be!!,.. it would only be a wake up call to the GOP,.. move right or else!!,.. this is a tough sell though,.. every now and again?,.. you make some sort of sense.
Bio-Chemical Viruses| 8.17.09 @ 3:28PM
Case about Bird Flu
Paypal donations for criminal charges against Baxter and WHO at jmburgermeister@gmail.com
« “Mass fatality management planning” gets top slot at the up-coming International Swine Flu ConferenceUpdate on the WHO plan for the take over of the USA from July 27th * Contact has been made to the German army to be involved in the FEMA/WHO take over of the USA from July 27th »The S. 666 Biological, Chemical, and Radiological Weapons Countermeasures Research Act, 2003, paved way for government funding of Baxter, Novartis and GSK in bioweapons research
By JB
Senate bill S. 666, the Biological, Chemical, and Radiological Weapons Countermeasures Research Act of 2003, gave incentives to private industry in the USA to conduct research into bioweapons, allegedly to fill gaps in the US biodefense procurement programs.
John Rockefeller was on a key Senate finance committee reviewing the bill which channelled amounts of government money into private biotechnology, pharmaceutical companies such as Baxter in order to develop bioweapons.
The Lieberman-Hatch bill S. 666 introduced incentives for companies to detect and weaponise viruses and also find “diagnostics” against viruses.
The Rockefeller family is also one of the biggest sponsors of WHO.
Also, Arlene Rockefeller, CFA, is an Executive Vice President of State Street Global Advisors and is the Global Equities CIO.
State Street Global Advisors is the largest institutional/mutual fund investment firms owning Baxter.
Baxter International Inc: Majority Institutional Ownership Ownership Information
S.L. Toddard| 8.17.09 @ 3:30PM
"Yes, I'm against all of the above, thank you very much."
That's fine as well. There's nothing wrong, morally or otherwise, about supporting socialism in America - i.e. being a socialist. But supporting socialism while pretending to oppose it is dishonest and hypocritical. But as long as you, Mark, do not pretend to be a "conservative" and are honest about your support of socialism then we merely disagree on policy.
S.L. Toddard| 8.17.09 @ 3:32PM
"we follow your advice and ignore the GOP in the next Presidential election"
We don't ignore them, we vote for only those GOP candidates who are conservatives. That will mean ignoring most of them on policy, but how can it hurt to keep socialists out of office?
PALIN 2012| 8.17.09 @ 3:44PM
We're obviously ignoring your agenda driven drivel, Toddard.
Conservatives are rocking the house and we're not going to stop. The only way to take back our country is to stay on the offensive.
Good bye. Good riddance.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.17.09 @ 3:58PM
Keeping socialists out of office how could that hurt?,.. well it couldn’t hurt,.. it could only help America!!,.. but how the hell do you sell this idea to the general GOP base,.. who don’t think their guy (Senator / Congressman) is one of the Hooked Republicans?,.. you’ve got to start throwing stones at them right away I guess?,.. but right now?,.. I’m going to throw myself in bed,.. because it’s almost 11 PM where I am,.. and I’m tired of thinking about what’s happening back there in the States,.. it gives me a headache when I do,.. and there isn’t crap I can do about it from here,.. but when I’m home?,.. I’m going to the 12th September March/ Rally/ Protest (whatever the hell they’re calling it now) in Washington D.C.,.. if for no other reason?,.. than it could just be the wake up call the GOP needs,.. that Americans are really pissed off,.. about everything!!,.. and that they better get on board now,.. or lose middle America,.. but I only think the Democrats are going to react to this event,.. the Republicans will take it as an endorsement,.. and miss the point completely.
jr| 8.17.09 @ 4:32PM
Pretty good post, Dr. Garamoni, but a couple of very iffy items. "(c) provisions that allow individuals and small businesses to purchase insurance across state boundaries; (f) provisions that allow health care professionals to practice in all 50 states without having to be licensed in each and every state. " These two smell of Federal control of something. Practicing in all states must be monitored by the big eye, as does licensing, don't they? A solution need for these.
Nick the Knife| 8.17.09 @ 4:58PM
To S. L. Toddard:
How much screaming did you do when a Republican administration tried to privatize Social Security? I am that guy you were asking about. Government ought to get out of the entitlement business period! That includes health care, railroads, farm subsidies-ALL OF IT!!
Does that answer your question?
S.L. Toddard| 8.17.09 @ 5:18PM
"How much screaming did you do when a Republican administration tried to privatize Social Security?"
None. I am all for repealing Social Security entirely.
"Government ought to get out of the entitlement business period! That includes health care, railroads, farm subsidies-ALL OF IT!!
Does that answer your question?"
No. My question is not really whether or not you *say* you support eliminating these programs, it's whether or not you support eliminating them *in reality*, at the ballot box, by voting against socialist candidates and socialist parties that regularly support, fund and extend these socialist programs - like the GOP for instance.
Thom| 8.17.09 @ 5:34PM
Todd, your central point is no different than saying all those people that voted to ratify the US Constitution were pro-slavery and anti-women (no right to vote). Those people had the same choices we have today, the lesser of two evils and they chose the lesser of two evils as they saw it then over essentially ending up with nothing but unviable rabble as represented by 13 small nation states that had no chance individually against a more powerful foe. Had they followed your advice in essence Britain could have dismantled what is now the US one colony at a time because purest by your standards would not have come to the aid of though colonies they considered less pure. Find a single instance in history where pure good won out over something less good and maybe your point will have something beyond academic credibility.
Hardius| 8.17.09 @ 6:01PM
As long as the Lobbiest outnumber our congress repersentives six to one nothing wholesome is going to come out of Washington D.C.
Pingback| 8.17.09 @ 6:52PM
The American Spectator : The Great Regrouping | Great Cards Cheap links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com| 8.17.09 @ 6:54PM
S.L. Toddard, last year there was a rumor being bandied about that john-boy mc-cino wished to have joey lie-burrmon as his running mate. I sent him an email letting him know that if he got that wish, I would not vote for him in the fall. After he selected Mrs. Palin, I felt that even with all his faults, mc-cino would prove a better choice than the master of deceit, the embodied golden calf himself. However, when mc-cino proved that he was not willing to fight the fight, I regretted my decision and posted on this site that I will never again vote for the lesser of two evils. You were either not reading American Spectator back then or you have forgotten what I wrote. But I answered all your questions at that time and if you want me to rehash that for your benefit, I charge $225 an hour for my time. I do offer a 10% cash discount or a 25% discount if payment is in collectable coin. However, there is a 10% added charge for credit card payments. I do not accept personal checks. Customers are required to pay for 2 hours in advance. This is not refundable and the information will be snail mailed to you once payment in full is received.
I have tried to inform you and your ilk numerous times before that you make a huge mistake to label all of us who oppose your golden calf as Republicans when most of us are fiercely independent and extremely conservative. I cannot, and refuse to, speak for anyone else, but I hate all things socialist. So there. No charge.
I had a weird thought last week. It popped into my head that we already have a single-payer system. The American taxpayer. Be sure to thank one today!
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Don’t Tread on Me!!
JimE| 8.17.09 @ 9:29PM
Toddard is machine made liberal asswipe whose level of intelligence and reasoning are of the type rarely seen outside of a re-education camp faculty meeting, he offers nothing and is incapable of answering your questions without clearance from KOS.
William| 8.17.09 @ 11:38PM
Alice Moore wrote: " . . . I think that reform will come when the entire US system collapses a la the Soviet Union 1991."
I agree with you Alice, and it will collapse sooner rather than later at the rate we are going. I hope the dissolution will be as bloodless as it was in the former USSR.
Osamas Pajamas| 8.18.09 @ 1:16AM
"All those socialist programs" that S.L.Toddard mentions above ---- I think they should be cancelled and that I should be refunded every bloody penny [ plus interest] spent not only on these programs but also every other government program except for the constabulary functions of protecting the citizens' rights of life, liberty, private property, and pursuit of personal happiness. In other words, I propose to put the Democrat party out of business ---- and poke some so-called Republicans in the eye with a sharp stick, as well. By the way, S.L. Toddard might want to check out these characters in two of the Ayn Rand novels, Elsworth Toohey in "The Fountainhead" and Wesley Mouch, in "Atlas Shrugged." And then go boil his head.
FeralCat| 8.18.09 @ 1:58AM
Curtis Rasmussen| 8.17.09 @ 11:35AM
"Is Obama and the House loaded with marxists or fascists?"
If it sounds like Karl Marx, acts like Benito Mussolini and stumbles like Bozo the Clown, it's probably Barack Obama!!!
Dave Lincoln| 8.18.09 @ 5:41AM
Oh, the FORTRAN comment of mine doesn't make sense, as firstly I used the greater-than and less-than signs, which server-software has rightly filtered out as HTML, and then I forgot my FORTRAN anyway!
Should be: Conservative NE GOP, GOP EQ Republican, therefore Conservative NE Republican.
Sorry, carry on.
Dave Lincoln| 8.18.09 @ 5:59AM
DANG! Should be .NE. and .EQ.
I am not worthy.
qwert| 8.18.09 @ 6:03AM
Barack Obama is a Maverick Thinker
Love him or not, Senator Barack Obama has proven to be a Maverick Thinker. His campaign has done so many things that are just not standard politician fare. Just the idea that a young, African-American man would even have a real shot at the Presidency is a maverick thought in itself. But, Sen. Obama is on the verge of being elected President of the United States. The lessons of his highly successful campaign should be applied to your business every single day.
This is not to say that everything the Obama campaign has done is completely original. It's just that the campaign has been able to mix some ideas of the past with new ideas, and package it as something fresh and new. It seems the Senator and his aides are able to recognize what has worked well in the past, but are not just rehashing it the same way it was done previously.
If you're honest, regardless of what candidate you support, Sen. Obama has made Senator John McCain look plain, old fashioned, and just out of date.
The Key to the Obama campaign is positive buzz. The announcement that Sen. Obama will accept the Democratic nomination in a football stadium in front of 75,000 people is downright brilliant. Rather than stand on a stage in front of 19,000 people in an indoor arena, he will give the most important speech of his life in a massive venue. He will be surrounded by thousands of cheering supporters. On TV screens across America this will look amazing, and reinforce the image of Sen. Obama as the overwhelming choice of the people. How can John McCain help but look small in comparison?
As brilliant an idea as this is, it is not completely original. John F. Kennedy did the same thing in 1960. Many voters today don't remember the Kennedy years, but they know he is revered. Just hearing that JFK accepted his nomination in a football stadium, and that Obama is doing the same links them emotionally in the hearts of many Americans. Especially young Americans, many of whom will vote for the first time this year.
Now consider how you can Omabatize your business. Whether it's politics, entertainment, or business people always flock to the hottest buzz. Your marketing should make you stand out first and foremost. Marketing technical jargon, and the same old bullet point features or benefits makes you just another face in the crowd. Our culture has A.D.D., so you need to grab the attention of your target market. You want to have the hot new product or service that is ready to set the world on fire.
Vanity matters. So many people I work with fear tooting their own horn. They feel if they brag too much about their product or service they'll be perceived in a negative fashion. Ever heard of a fellow named Donald Trump? There has never been a bigger self-promoter. Even when he was a virtual nobody he figured out how to get attention, and use publicity to rocket to the top of his industry. That's not easy in New York City, but he did it to perfection.
Just like Sen. Obama, love him or not you have to admit he knows how to get what he wants. Four years ago most people had no idea who Barack Obama was. Yet, just four years later he is on the cusp of becoming the most powerful man on Earth. That's pretty wild, and amazing self-promotion.
So, don't be afraid to talk up your business or your products or services. Don't be arrogant, but be proud. Talk about what you do in the same way you would talk about your child who is an honor student, or about that sweet new sports car you just bought. When you beam with pride you give off a positive vibe that people pick up on. People are always drawn to positive messages that make them feel good. Your target market will be far more receptive to you if they feel you can somehow transfer your positivity to them to make their life better.
The big thing in molding the image you want people to have of you is how you package yourself or your business. You won't find many competing companies that are both successful by looking the same as each other.
Think of Coke & Pepsi. Both soft drinks look alike if you pour them in a glass, but they are packaged very differently. They both have bright, colorful labels that are nothing alike. They both use plastic bottles, but they are shaped very differently and evoke different emotions. Their logos are also very different.
The lesson is trying to look like your most successful competitor will will really make you look a like something your customers have already seen before. There's nothing to motivate them to take a deeper look. You become the same old same old. Don't copy what others have done. Be bold. Your customers will be motivated to give you a call, or check out your web site by feeling as though they might find something new and exciting. Maybe you have a solution that your competitors don't.
One of the most successful pieces of copy I ever wrote was two sentences on a postcard. It read, "You're pissing away millions of dollars every year by not managing your inventory properly. You might want to fix that." It was a little crass, I know, but boy did it get the attention of those who received it.
The point is don't be afraid to be daring. Don't be shackled by so called "business language." Speak to people the way you would about your favorite movie or your cool new smartphone with all the bells and whistles. It's OK to say what you do is "awesome" or "cool" or gasp, FUN.
Be controversial. Even the bad publicity that has surrounded Sen. Obama has kept him at the forefront of almost every news cycle since the start of the year. His decision not to take public financing was very controversial. Heck, just the fact that a black man is within months of possibly being elected President is controversial. Barack Obama is controversial, and that draws people to him. His positive message keeps them in his corner.
Sen. Obama is the sunshine breaking through the clouds. Ronald Reagan said it was morning in America , and that made people feel good. It conjured up an image of a new beginning with the prospect of great things to come. Sen. Obama brings a similar message of hope and change in an increasingly dark time. People want to believe that great things are just ahead, and will vote for the person they think will bring those great things to their lives.
Be sunny and positive. No one likes a rain cloud, but people love fun in the sun. Let your customers know how good they'll feel working with you. They'll be happy to vote for you to bring those rays of sunshine to their daily grind. Of course, your customers cast their votes for you in dollars, and that will make you feel pretty darn good too.
folder gluer
Dave Lincoln| 8.18.09 @ 6:07AM
woah, quert, I'll take just the glue you're selling. Keep the folder. It seems to work really well on you.
Maybe you should try some of the stream-of-consiousness style prose that has become real popular lately.... with the glue ... of course.... yeah.... dig it ... baby....
Return on my 'investment'| 8.18.09 @ 9:28AM
I'm no big fan of Medicare or even Social Security, but I've paid so much into both programs over the past four decades, I'd like to get back what I put in, with a little interest, if possible. Yes, I know that the money paid into Social Security goes to today's recipients and doesn't collect interest for the "donors;" but since our government put us taxpayers in this position, I would like to get some return on my "investment" when my time comes -- beginning in about four years, for SS. But I don't hold out much hope that either program will be around long enough to do me any good.
Pingback| 8.18.09 @ 11:56AM
America Base Internet Service links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Who are you?| 8.18.09 @ 5:42PM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
I. Consider the Prophecies
Different Bible versions allow for different interpretations of prophecy. Therefore, the traditional view represented by the King James Version is used in this report. Scripture indicates the following:
That the Antichrist is Jewish
He will come from the region of Dan/Mount Hermon [Mount Sion] in the north of Israel as a false fulfillment of Romans 11:26
The tribe of Dan will be rejected by God as part of the 144,000 and will be used by God to bring judgment upon Israel and the unbelieving world
II. Consider the People
The Arcadian roots of the Merovingians, Spartans and Celts seem to be connected to the tribe of Dan because of their use of Dan-related place-names, personal names and peculiarities, i.e., Baal/goddess worship and architectural skills.
III. Consider the Locations
The Tribe of Dan inherited the pre-flood paganism [Baal worship] of the Canaanites [descendants of Ham and his son, Canaan] who occupied the northern area of Palestine at Mt. Hermon/Sion. Located at the 33rd degree, the ancient tribe of Dan influenced the basis of modern Freemasonry.
IV. Consider the Symbols
The symbols of the tribe of Dan are used by the Merovingians, the House of Stewart [Prince Michael] and the Judeo-Masonic authors of the Protocols of Sion [Representatives of Sion of the 33rd degree].
V. Consider the Sin
The Tribe of Dan was involved in a substitute worship system at Mt. Hermon/Sion that was both opposed to and removed from the true worship of God at Mount Zion in Jerusalem.
VI. Consider the Plan
The Judeo-Masonic conspirators have revealed to their own elect and concealed from the profane the fact that a Danite false messiah will reign from the territory of Mount Sion in Dan rather than Mount Zion in Jerusalem. Their ultimate objective is to recreate the pre-flood pagan culture which God once judged and will judge again
Pingback| 8.19.09 @ 10:25AM
Stop the Cap! » Blog Archive » More Paranoia About Net Neutrality Attempts to Scare C links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Brian Richard Allen | 8.19.09 @ 11:18AM
"Is Obama and the House (sic) loaded with marxists (sic) -- or fascists?"
No.
The malignant-mouthed mobbed-up Mussolini-modeled modified-Marxist murtadd-Muslim empty galabiyah, who presently calls himself "Obama," is a full-blown fascist and the house "Democrats," some of whom wear "Republican" costumes and are more accurately called RINOs -- are Marxists and/or are modified Marxists -- AKA fascists."
Brian Richard Allen
Lost Angels - Calif0zerocated 90028
And the Far Abroad
Ken Roberts | 8.19.09 @ 3:15PM
Voting in 2010 for a third party candidate will insure that the democrats retain a 60 vote advantage in the senate. A third party vote is one for the democrats, so if you are voting on principle you will be voting against yourself. One item I have learned since I have been on the net is that liberals attack your writing and your punctuation, it is an old ploy that they use to put them selves above you. Anytime they run out of material to post they resort to that. An elitist attitude is what we have here. So vote for a third party conservative if you want to, you will only insure the continued power of the progressives . I also post or write as I would speak and that may be an uneducated thing to do , but do it I will . Any one who would vote for Pelosi is wanting the progressive movement to continue , she is a queen and does not represent the people, She is a danger to our way of life . I will not respond to any one, I will leave after saying what is on my mind and for all of you out there take it as you want, it is how I feel.
Pingback| 9.27.09 @ 4:30AM
Use Faxing Over the Internet as an Alternative to a Fax Machine - The Blog Planet links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.30.09 @ 6:57AM
The Great Regrouping: Why the Co-Op Fallback is a Trojan Horse for Government Contro links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
fake watches paypal | 12.9.09 @ 3:30AM
Nice article!
Our web sells the excellent fake watches paypal at cheap price.Welcome to choose.
Thank you!
Pingback| 1.26.10 @ 1:15AM
Olbermann To Stewart: ‘You’re Right, Point Taken. Sorry’ | WeCharts.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: