Let's see; the Pepsi Center in Denver is the host of this year's DNC convention. It is one of the very best sports venues in the U.S., home to the Nuggets and Avalanche. The DNC has decided that while they chose the building and city for the convention, it is not good enough for them as it is. They are going to rip out most of the luxury boxes' interiors, bring in their own lighting, wiring, and other utilities, and when the convention is all over, take it all out and remodel the boxes back to their original design.
So for the so-called "green" party and those proclaiming global warming and energy conservation, they are making a mockery of that by engaging in this lunacy. Think of all the energy required to make this happen, all the wasted resources, all the extra manpower and transportation of the materials for this lark. I guess they can buy their carbon offsets to make it all "OK." And after all this, they are going to have the final night at Denver's Invesco Field, outdoors. What a total sham.
What's even more hypocritical is that the Pepsi Center is owned by an heir to the Wal-Mart fortune, Stan Kronke. So for the party that constantly bashes Wal-Mart for everything they can think of, it sure is interesting that they are paying to use his facility. Shouldn't the convention be held at down at the wharf in Long Beach or something?
Speaking of Denver, what a total disgrace the black singer Rene Marie was at the mayor's State of the City address last week. Instead of singing the National Anthem like she was supposed to, she sang the so-called "Black National Anthem" instead. Of all the self-centered, egotistical things I have seen, that is one of the worst. She directly violated the specific agreement she had so that she could flaunt her own agenda. She should be barred forever from appearing in Colorado for any reason.
But what is almost as bad is that no one in the mayor's staff on the stage did anything to stop it. They are also disgraceful in their own right.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Friday, July 4, 2008
Feelings vs. Common Sense
Neal Boortz, the Atlanta-based conservative radio host, recently gave the commencement address at Texas A&M University. His speech probably took many by surprise, as he proceeded to make dramatic comparisons between the phoniness of liberalism vs. the "factualness" of conservatism. He also bashed the liberal faculty, and all of their hypocrisy, including their group mentality, rather than their individualism.
His most important points to the graduates had to with the basic differences between liberalism (fascism, socialism, Marxism) and conservatism. First, liberalism is based on feelings vs. conservatism is based on thinking. Liberalism is about emotions and intentions whereas conservatism is about facts and common sense.
Furthermore, liberalism is about group identities, such as Rich, Poor, Blacks, Less Fortunate, etc., while conservatism is about individual identities, period. In college, the students learned about group behavior, but in the real world, it will be all about individual behavior.
He added that if the students have not changed to conservatism by age 30, then they should apply to be a teacher at a college, where they will fit right in with the liberal-fascist professors.
This goes right back to an earlier post about how impossible it is for the Democrats to unite the country; it is fundamentally against their philosophy to unite since they are all about groups. Meanwhile, Republicans talk about individualism, which is far more able to unite people, as they are all for the common goal of getting the government out of the way and letting people have the freedom to do what they want.
His most important points to the graduates had to with the basic differences between liberalism (fascism, socialism, Marxism) and conservatism. First, liberalism is based on feelings vs. conservatism is based on thinking. Liberalism is about emotions and intentions whereas conservatism is about facts and common sense.
Furthermore, liberalism is about group identities, such as Rich, Poor, Blacks, Less Fortunate, etc., while conservatism is about individual identities, period. In college, the students learned about group behavior, but in the real world, it will be all about individual behavior.
He added that if the students have not changed to conservatism by age 30, then they should apply to be a teacher at a college, where they will fit right in with the liberal-fascist professors.
This goes right back to an earlier post about how impossible it is for the Democrats to unite the country; it is fundamentally against their philosophy to unite since they are all about groups. Meanwhile, Republicans talk about individualism, which is far more able to unite people, as they are all for the common goal of getting the government out of the way and letting people have the freedom to do what they want.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Current News Hypocrisy
I read the other day where San Francisco wants to name a sewage treatment plant in "honor" of President Bush. Well, since the plant is in San Francisco, and they want to put Bush's name on it, I think it would actually be appropriate because all of San Francisco is such a sewage dump, then for Bush to actually be able to clean it up (treat it), then that would be perfectly fine. Since the U.S. has enjoyed seven years of a strong economy, which has certainly benefited San Francisco, despite its best efforts to deter it with its liberal mandates on businesses, then it makes sense for Bush to be honored for cleaning up S.F.
In all seriousness, the treatment plant should be named the Willie Brown & Gavin Newsome Memorial Liberal Phoniness Sewage and Garbage Dump for the years of ever-growing insane liberal policies that they have thrown down the throats of the residents. Somebody stop me next time they find me heading to San Francisco.
Also, regarding the Second Amendment ruling on Thursday, what's the first thing the liberal, fascist mayor of D.C. had to say? "This will lead to an increase in handgun violence." Funny thing is, though, when the ban was enacted in 1976, the rate of handgun violence went UP, not down, as all of the so-called intelligent liberals thought would happen. So, as usual, it was just more of the same liberal nonsense talking points that people can't be trusted to protect themselves, and the nanny-state government must do it for them. I submit that the handgun violence rate will fall once the citizens start to arm themselves again.
In all seriousness, the treatment plant should be named the Willie Brown & Gavin Newsome Memorial Liberal Phoniness Sewage and Garbage Dump for the years of ever-growing insane liberal policies that they have thrown down the throats of the residents. Somebody stop me next time they find me heading to San Francisco.
Also, regarding the Second Amendment ruling on Thursday, what's the first thing the liberal, fascist mayor of D.C. had to say? "This will lead to an increase in handgun violence." Funny thing is, though, when the ban was enacted in 1976, the rate of handgun violence went UP, not down, as all of the so-called intelligent liberals thought would happen. So, as usual, it was just more of the same liberal nonsense talking points that people can't be trusted to protect themselves, and the nanny-state government must do it for them. I submit that the handgun violence rate will fall once the citizens start to arm themselves again.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Race Pimp Hypocrisy
The black so-called "leaders" are nothing more than race pimps, using every "racial" situation to further their agenda. If they were so concerned about civil rights, then shouldn't they be so regardless of the race of the victim? But instead, only when blacks are aggrieved do the race pimps show up.
Furthermore, the liberal hypocrites are always pointing out this or that about race, yet conservatives say comparatively far less about race, and they are labeled the racists. I remember studying racism in social studies classes, and the definition of racism was when you do something special or different simply because of someone's race. That something could be good or bad. If a white man makes an extra effort to hold the door for a black woman, or a white man makes an extra compliment to a black woman, then he is, by definition, committing an act of racism. Even though he was showing kindness, he made a special effort because of the person's race, and therefore that fits the definition.
But the liberals love to point out everyone's differences, put people into groups, classify them, and then advocate for their perceived grievances. Conservatives try to avoid putting people into groups and classifications, and instead advocate for all people, regardless of who they are. Why then are conservatives the racists? The real racists are the liberals, because again, by definition, they are doing something special or different because of someone's race.
Furthermore, the liberal hypocrites are always pointing out this or that about race, yet conservatives say comparatively far less about race, and they are labeled the racists. I remember studying racism in social studies classes, and the definition of racism was when you do something special or different simply because of someone's race. That something could be good or bad. If a white man makes an extra effort to hold the door for a black woman, or a white man makes an extra compliment to a black woman, then he is, by definition, committing an act of racism. Even though he was showing kindness, he made a special effort because of the person's race, and therefore that fits the definition.
But the liberals love to point out everyone's differences, put people into groups, classify them, and then advocate for their perceived grievances. Conservatives try to avoid putting people into groups and classifications, and instead advocate for all people, regardless of who they are. Why then are conservatives the racists? The real racists are the liberals, because again, by definition, they are doing something special or different because of someone's race.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Liberalism and Fascism
There is an excellent new book by National Review Online journalist Jonah Goldberg called Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning: See the Liberal Fascism Blog. As much as it is an excellent political book, it is frankly an even better history book. Buy Liberal Fascism.
Starting in the early 1900s, he details the parallelism of Progressivism & Liberalism with the rise of Fascism in Europe. And while "fascist" has been a label thrown about regarding conservatives, its roots and growth clearly show that Liberalism is a "friendly" version of Fascism. Descriptions of conservatives as fascist, or in the case of President Bush as Hitler, are unmistakeably incorrect, inaccurate and disingenuous.
For example, it is hard to believe how fascist our government was during World War I under Woodrow Wilson. The extent to which people were prosecuted (persecuted) during the War for free speech is unfathomable, and certainly bears no relation to the accusations that liberals to try to lay at the feet of President Bush today during the current war effort.
From the early 1900s through World War II and to today's extreme liberals such as the Bill & Hillary, Goldberg does a masterful job of laying historic facts at the doorstep of liberal hypocrisy. The only tricky part of the book is keeping up with all the "isms" that he uses to describe the various movements, groups, etc. I highly recommend this fascinating, thoroughly researched book.
So while liberals continue to talk about feelings, intentions, beliefs and hope, conservatives deal with facts, truths, and common sense. Liberal Fascism spells out the facts clearly, and dispels almost all of the commonly held assertions that liberals love to make in the absence of any truth.
Starting in the early 1900s, he details the parallelism of Progressivism & Liberalism with the rise of Fascism in Europe. And while "fascist" has been a label thrown about regarding conservatives, its roots and growth clearly show that Liberalism is a "friendly" version of Fascism. Descriptions of conservatives as fascist, or in the case of President Bush as Hitler, are unmistakeably incorrect, inaccurate and disingenuous.
For example, it is hard to believe how fascist our government was during World War I under Woodrow Wilson. The extent to which people were prosecuted (persecuted) during the War for free speech is unfathomable, and certainly bears no relation to the accusations that liberals to try to lay at the feet of President Bush today during the current war effort.
From the early 1900s through World War II and to today's extreme liberals such as the Bill & Hillary, Goldberg does a masterful job of laying historic facts at the doorstep of liberal hypocrisy. The only tricky part of the book is keeping up with all the "isms" that he uses to describe the various movements, groups, etc. I highly recommend this fascinating, thoroughly researched book.
So while liberals continue to talk about feelings, intentions, beliefs and hope, conservatives deal with facts, truths, and common sense. Liberal Fascism spells out the facts clearly, and dispels almost all of the commonly held assertions that liberals love to make in the absence of any truth.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Liberal nonsense
Barack Hussein Obama declared the other day that new drilling won't lower the price of gas today, tomorrow, next week, next year or even in five years. So his alternative is to find new sources of energy, tax the oil & gas companies, etc. None of those will lower the price of gas today, tomorrow, next week, next year or even in five years. Should we wait five more years, and then start drilling? Then that new oil won't come on line for another five years according to him, which puts us ten years out; does that make any sense?
Why does he (and most liberals) think that taxing oil & gas companies will immediately lower gas prices? Please someone explain how that works. The oil & gas companies will simply pass the tax hike through to the consumer, which means higher gas prices. 76% of oil & gas companies' profits are spent on research & development. Why do we want to curtail that? We should be encouraging them (read: lower taxes) to do more research on current energy sources and other sources. Taxing them even more simply makes that impossible.
Liberals are opposed to offshore drilling; why? Is it simply the environmental concern? They talk about "no offshore drilling," but have absolutely no solution for anything to be accomplished in the near term -- except taxing. Why not drill offshore, huh?
While we're talking about it, liberals love to bash and demonize "Big Oil"; did they ever think that first, roughly half of the employees who work for these companies are Democrats, most likely, and second, that millions of employees have mutual funds with oil & gas stocks as part of their portfolio, and that roughly half of those employees are Democrats? So liberals are bashing the companies that many of their constituents either work at or are invested with, which simply hurts those very same people. What common sense does this make? I submit that it makes no common sense.
Changing gears: Liberals, especially Obama, talk about how they are unifiers. They are going to unite the country. How can liberals promote unification, when in fact they do the exact opposite? Liberals are the kings of class warfare, victimization groups, segregating people into groups (blacks, Hispanics, GLBT, poor, working class, rich, children, etc., etc.) and pitting them against one another. Meanwhile, conservatives talk about individualism, people's individual liberties, etc. Liberals talk about collectivism, classes of people, group power, and so on. Who are all these people who are being duped by the liberals into thinking that liberals will unite the country? There is physically no way for that to happen with liberals.
Why does he (and most liberals) think that taxing oil & gas companies will immediately lower gas prices? Please someone explain how that works. The oil & gas companies will simply pass the tax hike through to the consumer, which means higher gas prices. 76% of oil & gas companies' profits are spent on research & development. Why do we want to curtail that? We should be encouraging them (read: lower taxes) to do more research on current energy sources and other sources. Taxing them even more simply makes that impossible.
Liberals are opposed to offshore drilling; why? Is it simply the environmental concern? They talk about "no offshore drilling," but have absolutely no solution for anything to be accomplished in the near term -- except taxing. Why not drill offshore, huh?
While we're talking about it, liberals love to bash and demonize "Big Oil"; did they ever think that first, roughly half of the employees who work for these companies are Democrats, most likely, and second, that millions of employees have mutual funds with oil & gas stocks as part of their portfolio, and that roughly half of those employees are Democrats? So liberals are bashing the companies that many of their constituents either work at or are invested with, which simply hurts those very same people. What common sense does this make? I submit that it makes no common sense.
Changing gears: Liberals, especially Obama, talk about how they are unifiers. They are going to unite the country. How can liberals promote unification, when in fact they do the exact opposite? Liberals are the kings of class warfare, victimization groups, segregating people into groups (blacks, Hispanics, GLBT, poor, working class, rich, children, etc., etc.) and pitting them against one another. Meanwhile, conservatives talk about individualism, people's individual liberties, etc. Liberals talk about collectivism, classes of people, group power, and so on. Who are all these people who are being duped by the liberals into thinking that liberals will unite the country? There is physically no way for that to happen with liberals.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Liberal hypocrisy
Liberal hypocrisy; how much more of it will we tolerate?
Why don't people realize that liberalism in the U.S. is nothing more than a prettied-up version of Fascism, Marxism and Socialism?
So Obama's campaign won't allow two Muslim women to sit in a prominent spot at his speech, because of politically sensitive matters; who's the racist? Who's the hypocrite?
Do blacks realize that Martin Luther King Jr. was a registered Republican?
Do blacks realize that the North, during the Civil War, was primarily Republican and that the Republican North liberated the black slaves? The South was mostly Democratic and that Democrats were responsible for the majority of slavery? The Dems sought to maintain slavery while the Reps sought to end slavery -- and succeeded. This never seems to get pointed out.
Why doesn't this make the national "drive-by" media? Because it does not fit their agenda, that's why.
Why don't people realize that liberalism in the U.S. is nothing more than a prettied-up version of Fascism, Marxism and Socialism?
So Obama's campaign won't allow two Muslim women to sit in a prominent spot at his speech, because of politically sensitive matters; who's the racist? Who's the hypocrite?
Do blacks realize that Martin Luther King Jr. was a registered Republican?
Do blacks realize that the North, during the Civil War, was primarily Republican and that the Republican North liberated the black slaves? The South was mostly Democratic and that Democrats were responsible for the majority of slavery? The Dems sought to maintain slavery while the Reps sought to end slavery -- and succeeded. This never seems to get pointed out.
Why doesn't this make the national "drive-by" media? Because it does not fit their agenda, that's why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
