Posts tagged ‘democrat’
You know I always love a good poem about politics. Here is another one sure to please!
“ Uncle-Sam-I-Am “
By Katy Zastrow DuBois
“Cap and Trade, Cap and Trade
Don’t you like the deals I’ve made?
I’m Obama, yes I am
And I’m your brand new Uncle Sam”
( WE’RE THE PEOPLE! Yes we are!
You haven’t listened much, so far! )
Cap and Trade, Cap and Trade
I do not like the deals you’ve made
I think they’re all just Crap and Scam
I do not like them Uncle Sam
“Don’t you want less green-house gas?
Don’t you want Health Care to pass?
Don’t you want to go all ‘green’?
Don’t you like what all you’ve seen?
Fund my programs, YES WE CAN
Trust me- I’m your Uncle Sam”
The gas this will effect so far
Is how much I’ll pay to drive my car!
Funding with the Health Care Bill
Will cost the working stiffs more still!
I do not want to fund your stuff
Of you, I think we’ve had enough!
I think it’s all just Crap and Scam
I do not trust you, Uncle Sam
“Would you, could you, love new jobs?
Don’t worry who it really robs!
You didn’t like my ‘Green Jobs Czar’
I’ve tried to CHANGE it all so far!
Don’t you BELIEVE it’s not a scam?
Don’t you have HOPE in Uncle Sam?”
Just who is it you want to please?
The new jobs will go overseas!
The jobs will move from higher tax
Domestic workers get the ax!
I BELIEVE you’ll put us in a jam
I think you’re HOPELESS, Uncle Sam!
“Try not to be Rejectionists!
You sound just like Protectionists!
You need to have a ‘global view’
So what if all this hurts a few?
Why all the fuss? Why give a damn?
I know what’s best, I’m Uncle Sam!”
You think you have a ‘global view‘?
WE’RE on this ‘globe‘, it hurts us too!
You’ll cost us all and make it hard
You’re crapping in your own back yard!
You took an oath- What does that mean?
Not very much, from what we’ve seen
But we have figured out the score
You push for power-you want more
It’s obvious you won’t relent
Until you have big government
You say it’s just the need for ‘green’?
So get rid of your limousine!
If you were so involved with that
You’d cut down your own thermostat!
And let us not too soon forget
The gas to fly Pelosi’s jet-
The cost for THAT will really soar
And yet you’ll burden us with more!
40 billion more in added tax
You think that we don’t know the facts?
YOU’VE GOT A PLAN! You’ve got it set!
You’re only racking up more debt!
Electric bills will go sky high
So this is how you’ll SHARE THE PIE?
And THOSE WHO ARE COMING UP BEHIND
Will pay the price, and they WILL mind
You really just want more control
You’ll dig us in a bigger hole!
You see, I am a realist
Who see’s that you’re a Socialist
Chavez! Obama! You’re just the same
But we will beat you at your game
For if we let you have your way
You’d have us be the USSA
But it’s still AMERICA! ( Last time I checked )
A country you have not yet wrecked!
Your legacy will never fade
If we get stuck with Cap and Trade
But you’re about your power and fame
As presidents go, you’re pretty lame
SO HEAR US LOUD! NO CRAP AND SCAM!
And we will fight this, Uncle Sam!
A quick break from my Federalist Papers to review a children’s biography on none other than . . . Nancy Pelosi. I could not help myself from checking out to read myself. I am amazed at all these biographies that are popping up on the current politicians. There are tons of books on Barack and Michelle Obama already. These would not even cover his presidency. He has not done anything yet. Why not wait until he has actually been in office for a period of time to discuss his career? I never got around to posting this picture from the bookstore the day of the inauguration there were so many different biographies out for Obama. Remember, this was also around Lincoln’s birthday celebration this year too and there was no big display about him.
I was shocked and awed that there was even a biography about Pelosi. In case you had not followed any of my previous posts, I am not what I would call a fan. The book is titles, Political Profiles – Nancy Pelosi by Sandra H. Shichtman. The publisher also has titles for the following: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Al Gore, Rudy Giuliani, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I get that she is the first woman speaker of the house, (which actually frightens me a good bit that she is third in line for chain of command) so maybe that is why she has a children’s biography. But here is what I learned:
Nancy’s dad was a 5 term congressman and three term mayor. It clearly defined her father as a New Deal Democrat under FDR, because they “believed that the government should help people who needed it.”
The most notable thing in the book to me just confirmed what I have always believed Nancy can not be bi-partisan. It is not part of her, it is not in her blood. She just can’t do it. There is a story of a worker for the GOP giving 7 year old Nancy a toy elephant at a polling location. Nancy gave it right back to the man and when she was asked about it now . . . “He thinks I don’t know what this is. I was offended. In our family it was about whose side you are on; the whole idea of working for families and the opportunity they had.” It goes on to say how even when she was young Nancy knew that the Democratic Party was her party. (please note the italics on her are taken directly from the text, not from me to imply spoken language.)
So her whole family was in politics, she worked in politics her whole life helping promote other candidates, etc. Then when her own children were grown she ran for office the first time. This was in 1987. Would just like to remind people that she has been voted in since then. You keep sending her back. Nancy is very anti-Bush to put it nicely. She has had nothing good to say about him and in act has been pretty nasty. I had never heard this fine quote of hers, “President Bush in an incompetent leader. In fact, he’s not a leader . . He’s a person who has no judgment, no experience, and no knowledge of the subject he has to decide on.” Nice Nancy.
So I gave you what I saw as some major points in the biography. It does chronicle what her different positions are and what she has “done” in office. I use that a bit loosely as I do not agree with ANY of her viewpoints. In fact I have not come up with one thing that she supports that I agree with. I will have to keep looking. I don’t think she can move to the center. Growing up with a father who is very pro New Deal I am not surprised at all at Pelosi’s quick leap into promoting other New Deal type initiatives. Even though historians and economists all say that the New Deal actually prolonged the depression rather than actually helping. Frankly I think we are recreating the exact same thing. The Depression ended when the war began.
I was listening to some Rush and reading some blogs and came across this tidbit of information. It appears that there have been paid trolls on youtube, twitter, blogs, etc to create a general sense of apathy or the feeling that it is a lost cause. I have seen plenty of these types of postings and they are all very similar in nature. Stick to talking points and frequently insulting people who have opposing views. Always laying claim that there is a landslide win for Obama. (whoever wins will NOT win by a landslide. I believe this will be a VERY close election)
But here is a comment that was left over at Hillbuzz
Sarah P. writing to the Hill Buzz website responding to their story of how really well McCain is doing with angry Democrats, and the media is not covering.
“Okay, I want to clear my conscience a little. Hopefully you could make a blog post to help some fellow Clinton supporters out. I worked for the campaign–” Obama, “–and I can’t wait for this week to be over. I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate, but over time I grew to love Hillary. The internal campaign idea, Obama campaign, is to twist, distort, humiliate, and finally dispirit you. We pay people and organize people to go on all the online sites and play the part of a Clinton or McCain supporter who just switched our support for Obama. We do this to stifle your motivation, to destroy your confidence. We did this the whole primary, and it worked. Sprinkle in mass vote confusion becomes bewildering, most people lose patience, they just give up on their support of a candidate and decide just to block out TV, news, websites, et cetera.
This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement in vote turnout issues. Next, we infiltrate all the blogs, and all the YouTube videos, and we overwhelm the voting, the comments, all to continue the appearance of overwhelming world support for Obama. People make posts to the effect that the world has gone mad. That’s the intention, to make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending. We have also had quite a hand in skewing many, many polls.” I don’t know how they’ve done that. She doesn’t describe how they’ve skewed the polls. “Some we couldn’t control as much as we would have liked, but many we have spoiled, just enough to make Real Clear Politics look scary to a McCain supporter. It’s worked, although the goal was to appear 13 to 15 points ahead. You see, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner. Go with the flow, become sheeple. The polls are roughly three to five points in favor of Barack. That’s due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple. Our donors are the same people who finance the mainstream media. Their interests are tied. Barack then tends to come across as Teflon, nothing sticks, and trust me, there were meetings with Fox News, the goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch O’Reilly, he’s become much more diplomatic and fair and balanced and soft towards Obama. It’s because he wants to retain the number one spot on cable news and have access to the Obama campaign.
“Now all the media want access, and they’re expecting more, and that’s why nothing sticks to Obama. The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless the results. There is no true inauguration draft or true Grant Park construction going on. There will be a party, but we’re boasting beyond the truth to make it seem like the election is wrapped up. Our goal is to continue to make you lose your morale. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key Republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all. There’s a huge staff of people working around the clock watching every site, every blog, we flood these sites, we have had a goal to overwhelm. The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you got the picture. I’m saying this because I know Hillary was better for the country, and I now realize this. I was too late by the time I connected to her.
“To me, Barack was just a cool young dude that seemed like a star. I didn’t know him or his policies but now I understand more than I care to, and I realize his interests are more for him and the DNC and all working like puppets with Dean. I always thought a president wanted the better good for the country. The end result I see is everybody dependent on the government. This means more and more people voting for the DNC. This means the future is forever altered. I don’t see this as America. So I’m now supporting McCain. Sarah Palin’s a huge threat. Our campaign has feared her like you cannot imagine. If it seems unfair how she’s been treated, well, it’s because she has had a team working around the clock to make her look like a fool,” meaning the Obama camp has had a team. “This is a big conspiracy. I’m so shocked. We released a little blurb the other day that Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts toward 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue caring about 2008. Trust me, it’s alive. David Axelrod, Plouffe, very smart, but it’s a sticky, ugly, not very truthful kind of intelligence. It’s not over yet but I think the machine is working. It’s a hill to climb. I’ll be quitting my post on November 5th. My vote will be for John McCain. Fortunately, my position has been a marketing position. I don’t feel I had any part of anything I’d feel guilty for, but I look forward to getting out of this as the negativity and environment upset me. PS, my name is not really Sarah but I am a female and I understand your plight.”
A little political humor for your holiday! Have a safe night, filled with goodies.
Seriously. Why can’t people even pretend to get along, or at least be civil?
We are not going to agree on everything. There is nothing wrong with that. The fact that I have different views and opinions from you is great. We are individuals with our own thoughts and opinions. If we all had the same views and opinions we would not be human. Diversity is a good thing.
That even extends into the political arena. I am free to vote for whoever and whatever I like. What I hold to be good and true. Your view may be totally different. We can agree to disagree.
Where has this bitter divisiveness come from? Everyone is attacking each other and then calling foul on the other. Well, you can’t have it both ways. Some of the comments I have been reading around the internet are just hateful – from BOTH parties.
People have been jumping onto the bandwagon to defend their beliefs at the expense of the others. In doing that, when you attack back with hate and bitterness – you are doing exactly what you are complaining about. Talk about defeating your own purpose. I know this happens on both sides. There are things I hear that make me cringe. I hope that no one supports those who seem to be extremist in their reaction.
We all know there are extremists in every group. They exist throughout society in all groups. What has happened to letting the few overshadow the rest? It would appear that the media is helping to perpetuate this stereotypical image through frequent, consistent reminder.
Here is what I don’t get.
People stealing each others signs, replacing them with the opposing view. Why do that? It is their yard, their car, their right to have that in their yard. If you don’t like it – look away. Don’t taunt them or try to engage in a battle of words or will. Simple human decency seems to have flown out the window.
Yes, we all have the right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Ammendment. That is why it is okay for me to even write about what I think without fear. Everyone is guaranteed that.
- Freedom of speech
- Freedom of Religion
- Freedom of the Press
- Right to gather/assemble (peacefully)
- Right to petition
It seems that in the name of “freedom of speech” people have been carrying things a bit too far. You don’t have the right to slander or libel, attack someone, etc.
My tips for how to behave during an election season:
* Don’t park your car beside someones home, write something inflammatory about them on it, and then leave it there for all to see for days.
* Don’t attack at a campaign motorcade.
* Don’t list someones baby on ebay.
* Don’t threaten people physicially for having views other than yours.
Two supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama found handwritten death threats in their mailboxes Thursday and reported them to Villa Park police. A 74-year-old woman and a 46-year-old man with Obama signs in their front yards near the 600 block of South Villa Avenue received similar letters that had a Villa Park Village Hall return address. “Get the Obama signs off your property–now,” the letter reads. “Failure to obey this order will result in the immediate death of all family members.” Both residents said they will not remove their signs, though the man, who had voted Republican for 25 years before switching parties this year, said his wife is worried about letting their 7-year-old son play alone outside.
* Don’t steal people’s yard signs and replace them with your own. -I am pretty sure theft is not covered by free speech.
As a conservative and Republican I am not out to get you. I do not slander you, I do not call you names for your views and I would appreciate the respect that I show to you.
Even if you don’t like my views, you don’t get to insult or call me names. I am not doing that to you. You have the chance to be the bigger person.
Until yesterday I had never even heard of the Fairness Doctrine. Then in two separate instances yesterday I heard mention of it, so that must mean I should look into it and see what it is and then see if it is good or bad.
So after hearing mention of it twice I decided to look it up. The doctrine was originally implemented to try and make sure that stations were giving opposing views on topics. They did not want stations/channels to impose singular views. That sounds almost reasonable. But is it next to impossible to enforce. Who decides what is balanced?
It is curious to note that when this was put in place there were far less options of what to watch or listen too. As well, the Republicans are against this legislation. It went out during the Reagan administration and they have fought to keep it as such. The Democrats are pushing to have it brought back, Pelosi is a strong supporter. The funny part here is by large the media leans far to the liberal Democrat side so why on earth do they even care? They are concerned about the success of conservative talk radio – Rush type people. I would venture to say the left has far more media outlets than the right so why can’t they just let it be. It does violate free speech and first ammendment rights. AND would all the other channels give a balanced view of the conservative? I doubt that.
McCain does not support bringing this doctrine back, he has actually worked to enact legislation to keep it from returning. Obama does claim to oppose a reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine.” But more recently, a campaign surrogate told a C-SPAN TV audience Obama had not taken a position on the doctrine. In addition, a source in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told B&C in July that he could not rule out a push from House Democrats to bring it back, either in this Congress or the next. (broadcasting cable)
And this from the New York Post:
Should Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine – and to diminish conservatives’ influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.
The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It’s a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.
Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham’s, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don’t do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.
Then there’s all the lawyers you’d have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged – like entertainment or sports coverage?
The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles
So here is what the Fairness Doctrine states: (from wikipedia)
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the FCC’s view) honest, equitable, and balanced. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Commission’s general right to enforce such a policy where channels are limited, but the courts have generally not considered that the FCC is obliged to do so. The FCC has since withdrawn the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.
It was introduced in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 ). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations. It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.
Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan‘s presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.
In one landmark case, the FCC argued that teletext was a new technology that created soaring demand for a limited resource, and thus could be exempt from the Fairness Doctrine. The Telecommunications Research and Action Center (TRAC) and Media Access Project (MAP) argued that teletext transmissions should be regulated like any other airwave technology, hence the Fairness Doctrine was applicable (and must be enforced by the FCC).
In 1986, Judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the Fairness Doctrine did apply to teletext but that the FCC was not required to apply it. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, two other judges on the same court declared that Congress did not mandate the doctrine and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it.
In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989. The FCC stated, “the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists,” and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.
It could really change things if brought back. I like the comparison I read that said requiring balance would be like making a country station play Toby Keith and then play Kanye West. They just don’t go together. You can find what you want to listen to.