Oct
8
2011
[Welcome Instapundit readers. Always grateful to have new eyes poking around here]
Remember when Obama the candidate was refreshingly honest about his previous drug use in the past. Well, looks like the hopes and dreams of those who support personal freedoms and thought he would understand given his history have gone up in smoke!
Remember when the Obama administration was going to be stand-offish on states that had approved the use of medical marijuana?
Well, there’s a election coming, and it always helps to look tough on drugs (mmmm-kay).
Oh, he was very much for it before he was against it.
And just to show how idiotic and political this is, there’s this. Just a couple of months ago, there was a huge, I mean HUGE pot bust here in Sanger, which is near Fresno.
How big was it?
Check out the video of a helicopter flying over the pot growing operation.
Yes, you do keep asking yourself, are they done filming yet?… are they done now?… NOW???
Yet, just a month later, the people who were arrested during this raid…. were set free! On orders of the same Fed that is now going after the state sanctioned medical marijuana sellers. What. Were these people who were detained donors to the party or something???
Remember when this administration was going to be ultra tough on polluters?
Job losses due to regulations would look bad. According to the Associated Press “EPA regional administrator Al Armendariz said the agency’s decision to ease the standards had to do with new data and was not political”. Sounds good and all, except this administration has a long history of ignoring science when it suited their needs. Did I mention there is an election coming?
Plus, the President, who wants to be considered Mr Compromise, can’t compromise on his latest jobs bill, which guarantees it won’t get past the republican house. It’s almost as if there is an election coming, and he wants to blame the lack of a jobs bill on Republicans!
And speaking of…. Don’t think they’re of the hook!
Here is the stupid!
We know that the unemployment rate for 18 – 25 year olds is very high, at about 24%. We also see that the vast majority of the Occupy Wall Street crowd is right within that demographic. But I guess Herman Cain doesn’t have all the facts:
“What do they want? I don’t have facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama administration. Don’t blame Wall Street. Don’t blame the big bank. If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself.”
But this at least has some tact. Laura Ingraham on her radio show today told them bluntly “they needed to get a job”. Uhm… If they could find a job in this economy, maybe they wouldn’t be protesting!
Jeez! Why does any one listen to these people.
PS. Yes, I do know that many (most) of the protesters at the various “Occupation” sites haven’t a clue, are serial protestors, will go out and picket any liberal cause at the drop of a hat, and don’t know what they’re doing it for most of the time. That doesn’t negate the fact that unemployment is a severe concern for that age group, and that many major corporations are sitting on money, not reinvesting it back into the economy and creating more jobs. If they are simply waiting for the Presidency to change hands, well, that doesn’t look good either.
PPS. Meep Meep = Silent Silent.
Obama’s biggest cheerleader has gone mysteriously silent on the administrations decision to crack down on medical marijuana. I suspect he’ll respond one of these days, but it’s pretty embarrassing when a very part time blogger beats him to it. But, I guess it’s complicated.
Oct
6
2011
Here are snippets of conversations with certain Conservatives arguing against same sex marriage:
Ned starts out:
“Marriage does not exist to produce children; that has been done since time immemorial regardless of marriage status. Marriage exists to encourage people to raise and support the children they produce. It is not a means to regulate procreation; it is a means to manage the natural output of procreation. Society privileges it and subsidizes it because it creates a natural cost-sharing model in which those who procreate bear a significant portion of the cost and resources required for raising the children produced — versus single or no parenthood, in which case the community (state) must absorb the full cost of raising the children produced.
Marriage makes sense for heterosexuals because it provides an ideal environment for managing, raising, and supporting the natural outgrowth of heterosexual activity. But since homosexual activity does not produce the same natural output, there is no reason to treat it similarly or for society to subsidize it or otherwise promote it.
In short, there is really no public good or public value provided by gay-sex marriage. Why, then, should society fund it or subsidize it?”
Marriage should remain one man one woman because it’s tradition:
Through most of those 6,000 years, there was an understanding between men and women; men’s access to Mr. Fuzzy was contingent upon men providing women with shelter, support, social status and responsibility for any offspring that resulted. Then came the ‘Sexual Revolution,’ where women were taught that they were somehow oppressed for wanting something tangible in return for access to their assets. Men were absolved of the responsibility for taking care of the women they slept with, and women were told if they took a pill it would all work out. Because modern society, you see, knew so much better than all of that “outdated” and “unequal” dogma that previous generations believed in.
So, how well has this worked out for women, children, men, and society in general? Women’s sexual leverage over men has diminished to almost nothing, men are no longer expected to raise the children they sire, minority family structures have collapsed entirely and non-minority structures are increasingly rickety, men have become juvenlized.
And the conversation eventually devolved to this accusation:
If you don’t want your child to be labeled a bastard, Sonic, don’t go have irresponsible sex outside of marriage. Using what will happen to the child you produce to avoid consequences for your actions is nothing more than the most blatant and obvious hostage-taking, and shows exactly how little regard you have for the child in the first place.
And frankly, given that you’re pro-choice, you have exactly zero problem with killing a child based on “decisions/actions his or her parents made, decisions which the child had no control over”.
Never mind that I don’t have a child, bastard or not. And then there’s this:
And all you are doing is making pathetic excuses, Sonic. The reason a child is born a bastard is because two adults chose to be irresponsible. The blood is on their hands, the stigma is on their heads. They chose to put a child through this. They engaged in the activity that brought it. And you don’t want to hold them responsible, just as you want to make sure they can treat the child just like an STD.
You want benefits [marriage] without responsibility, commitment, or consequences, Sonic. That’s all it is.
As you can see, this exercise is quite pointless. I did it so you won’t have to.
PS. I missed this gem.
I asked of Vic (names changed to protect everybody btw):
Do you think Ned is more likely to cheat because he is gay?….Do you think I’m more likely to cheat because I’m gay?
I got this answer:
Yes to both.
Except that wasn’t Vic answering… That was Ned!
I forgot to mention. These are gay conservatives.
Oct
5
2011
This.
There is too much wealth concentrated in too few banks. Look at 1998… Ah, the consequences of the Glass-Steagal repeal. And you wonder why the dolts in Congress didn’t even consider bringing that back. Too damned hard untangling this mess! Can you imagine all those campaign funds they would lose out on? This is one reason I will never belong to another political party. The problem here is right under their noses, but they are so bought off that they will not change the system because the system ownes them.
PS. One of the causes of the Great Depression was that banks cross mingled investments from different areas – stock market investments were co-mingled with business investments. When the stock market crashed, so too did business funds. It is exactly the same thing that happened with the mortgage bust in 2007. Those poison investments were intertwined with everything else. For over 60 years, Glass-Steagal helped to prevent that. Now, with it’s repeal, TARP, and the other bail-out, that investment co-mingling is more than even a feature of the system. When Europe goes bust – not if, but when – we are screwed, even more than we are now!!!!!
Oct
5
2011
OMG… I can’t believe this! For GODS SAKE! He REALLY needs to shave!
Oct
1
2011
Just lately, Herman Cain has been picking up a lot of traction. Some of my friends have openly endorsed him. I was going to write a lengthy post on this topic, but realized that my thoughts on this can be winnowed down to a short and sweet post.
Here it is.
A part of me likes Herman Cain. He is as close to an “outsider” as you’re going to see from either party. But here is the thing that bothers me.
On many issues, he’s a blank slate. Yes, he’s said stuff on this point or that, but there is absolutely no track record of action to bolster the campaign promises made so far. Remember, it wasn’t too long ago that another candidate ran with no experience in various capacities, who made promises that he couldn’t keep.
Barrack Obama.
- Had no business experience.
- Had little to no foreign affairs experience.
- Had no experience as an executive.
- Voted “present” many times in the Illinois Senate to avoid having to make any controversial decisions that would hurt him in the future.
Granted, there are key differences between Cain and Obama. Cain has eons of business experience that Obama can only dream of, not that he would, apparently. But, my point is this:
Foreign Policy – Cain has “0” experience in that capacity; maybe even less than candidate Obama did a few years ago. Do we want that in these internationally turbulent times?
Who will Cain appoint as financial advisers? 20 to 1 says it will be the same Wall Street / Goldman Sachs types that we’ve seen appointed to those positions for the last 30 years! After all, they are looked upon as the most business friendly.
Also, consider this; Cain is a business man. If the banks are in trouble again, as they were in 2008, do you really think Cian will just sit back and watch the banks suffer banks runs or fail, which would greatly hamper the business community as a whole?
Take it or leave it, those are my thoughts. Again, I do apreciate that Cain is truly a “fresh face”, but being untested and inexperienced with no track record does have down sides. Just look at President Obama.
Sep
30
2011
Though the list is not very long, here’s another good thing the current administration can add to its accomplishments list. And yet another missed opportunity for the GOP. They should have been campaigning for this a long time ago
Sep
24
2011
Yes, that is really what’s happened here. I was at a customers house and their dog was furiously digging a hole and licking something. The pup would stagger around for a bit, obviously stoned out of its whits, then go back for more! The owner came out and said the dog does this all the time!
Little Meth Head Doggie!
Sep
23
2011
Once again TPM is presenting a clipped / edited portion of the latest GOP debate. Where-as the last one was a manipulation, argument by omission, in an effort to make the GOP look more horrible than it would if you watch the entire exchange, the latest…. Well…. If you watch the entire exchange, the GOP looks even worse!
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was a political solution to a politically created problem, created when Bill Clinton tried to implement military policy via executive order, without regard as to whether the military community was ready for it or not. Remember that, though it was the 90’s, being gay was not nearly as accepted as it has become in the last decade. DADT was a political compromise for its time. It may have moved the ball forward to get where we are now, or it may have hindered it. We’ll never know. What is perfectly clear to most, is that its time has past. There is no longer any need for needless restrictive policy such as this.
Sep
23
2011
Particles that can go faster than the speed of light????
Nope. This is false. It goes against the scientific consensus. This goes against the model predictions. Sorry, but if you believe this, you are a special relativity denier!
Signed: James Hansen and All Gore.
Note – This is almost certainly a measurement error, but in climate science they wouldn’t even bother to confirm the actual error, which of course is still important to science.