.
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Runner Up Comment of the Day
The democrats aren’t negotiating, they’re demanding. They have a long list of demands, like convicts in a prison riot, they’re demanding, and their idea of negotiation is convincing the prison warden to accept something from their list of demands.
Skandia Recluse on December 3, 2010 at 5:02 PM
from Hot Air.com
Friday, September 3, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
James Carville Does Know A Thing Or Two About Ignorance In The Democrat Party
James Carville said:
“Ideologies aren't all that important. What's important is psychology.
The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That's why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.
Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don't have a clue as to political reality.
What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want.
The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic operative instead of a Republican was because there were more Democrats that didn't have a clue than there were Republicans.
Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth. If you're smart enough, truth is what you make the voter think it is. That's why I'm a Democrat. I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to.”
******************************************************
“I was against gay marriage until I realized I didn't have to get one."
“Ideologies aren't all that important. What's important is psychology.
The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That's why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.
Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don't have a clue as to political reality.
What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want.
The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic operative instead of a Republican was because there were more Democrats that didn't have a clue than there were Republicans.
Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth. If you're smart enough, truth is what you make the voter think it is. That's why I'm a Democrat. I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to.”
******************************************************
“I was against gay marriage until I realized I didn't have to get one."
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
1992 Democrat Convention Refused toAllow an Antiabortion Speaker
this is a post from this blog http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1161
A Vote for Sarah Palin
By Suann Therese Maier
Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 7:51 AM
Three memories have shaped my approach to this year’s general election.
Here’s the first. In the late 1970s, during a two-year break from teaching to raise our second son, an adopted child, I found myself at a Los Angeles dinner party filled with DINKs, the “double income, no kids” crowd who were just emerging as a self-aware and upwardly mobile social group. I fell to talking—or more accurately, listening—to a chatty young female attorney who said she was putting in eighty hours a week as a junior associate on a variety of important cases.
After twenty minutes or so, she finally noticed my silence and asked me what I did with my own time. So I told her. I told her about the young couple that had asked my husband and me to adopt their baby if we covered their hospital expenses. I told her about waiting outside the delivery room for our son to be born. I told her about the bureaucratic maze that came with finalizing the adoption of a newborn. I told her about borrowing money from friends so we’d look more solvent than we actually were to Social Service inspectors who checked our accounts.
“That’s wonderful dear,” she said. “You’re so lucky not to have a real job.”
Here’s the second memory. I remember my fourth child, our son Dan, being born one winter evening, purple and struggling for breath. I remember my husband pouring water over his head as we baptized him in my arms. I remember the young Filipina doctor rushing Dan to intensive care. I remember the ten days of his fighting for life. And I remember Dan’s diagnosis, when it finally came in: Down syndrome.
Here’s the third memory. I remember my father, a successful young Chicago attorney, telling me why the Democratic party was the party of “our people,” and why so many Catholics were Democrats, and why the party stood for the little guy, the poor and the defenseless. I remember listening as a young girl in our kitchen as Saul Alinsky organized my parents’ Catholic friends on racial and economic issues in our Chicago living room. And I remember the night in 1992 when Pennsylvania’s governor, Robert Casey, was denied a chance to talk against abortion at the Democratic national convention.
As I draw on those memories now, I reach certain conclusions. As a woman, mother, wife, and lifetime professional educator, I will vote, enthusiastically, for Sarah Palin as vice president this November. Even if the media pressure forces her from the ticket, I will vote against the Democratic party—partly because I respect John McCain and believe him to be the better candidate, but equally because I’m tired of the intransigence and condescension of the Democratic leadership on the abortion issue.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because I don’t need the Democratic platform’s belated affirmation of motherhood. Thanks, but I already know that motherhood is good, several times over. Moreover, the party’s rediscovery of motherhood seems rather cynical in the current news cycle, while Democratic-friendly bloggers and media types bash Palin about her daughter’s pregnancy and her own busy schedule while bringing up children. How can a real sympathy for motherhood come from the same people who wrote a platform that hardens the party’s addiction to a phony right to kill the unborn?
I will vote for Sarah Palin because she has guts. We’ve never met, but I suspect I know something about her life, and so do a great many other women. I know what it means to have a son with Down syndrome. I know what it means to talk a good line about religious faith and then be asked to prove it. I know what it means to have a daughter pregnant and unmarried.
In fact, while we’re on the subject, I also know what it means to have two grandchildren born out of wedlock, a son struggling with alcohol, two grandchildren with serious disabilities, putting myself through graduate school while simultaneously caring for a husband and children and teaching full time—and a whole lot more. This is the stuff of real human love; this is the raw material of family life. And those who think that Palin’s beliefs and family struggles are funny or worth jeering at, simply reveal the venality of their own hearts.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because she is intelligent, tenacious and talented. Nobody made her rise easy, and no one is making it easy now. And—is it only moms who notice this?—unlike Senator Biden, she does seem to act consistently on her beliefs about the sanctity of life, at considerable personal cost.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because she doesn’t come from Washington or New York or Chicago or anywhere else the political and media aristoi like to hang out. In fact, I especially like the idea that the state she governs actually produces something—like some of the oil that powers the hair dryers and klieg lights at MSNBC.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because Roe v. Wade is bad law, and it needs to fall. I don’t doubt the intelligence and character of men like Doug Kmiec, the younger Bob Casey, and others who sympathize with the Obama campaign. But I do doubt their judgment. At the end of the day, the Democratic party in 2008 has conceded nothing to pro-life Democrats. The fact that Sen. Obama listens respectfully to pro-lifers without calling them reactionary dunces does not constitute progress. Results and behavior are what matter. On both those counts, the party has again failed to show any real sensitivity to pro-life concerns. In that light, high profile Catholics who support Obama are simply rationalizing their surrender on Roe.
Finally, I will vote for Sarah Palin, not because I’ve left the Democratic party of my youth and young adulthood, but because that party has left me. In fact, it no longer exists. And no amount of elegant speaking, exciting choreography, and moral alibis will bring it back.
That’s the real tragedy of this election.
Suann Therese Maier, the mother of four and former director of non-profit support organizations for pregnant women and children with disabilities, is a teacher in Colorado.
A Vote for Sarah Palin
By Suann Therese Maier
Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 7:51 AM
Three memories have shaped my approach to this year’s general election.
Here’s the first. In the late 1970s, during a two-year break from teaching to raise our second son, an adopted child, I found myself at a Los Angeles dinner party filled with DINKs, the “double income, no kids” crowd who were just emerging as a self-aware and upwardly mobile social group. I fell to talking—or more accurately, listening—to a chatty young female attorney who said she was putting in eighty hours a week as a junior associate on a variety of important cases.
After twenty minutes or so, she finally noticed my silence and asked me what I did with my own time. So I told her. I told her about the young couple that had asked my husband and me to adopt their baby if we covered their hospital expenses. I told her about waiting outside the delivery room for our son to be born. I told her about the bureaucratic maze that came with finalizing the adoption of a newborn. I told her about borrowing money from friends so we’d look more solvent than we actually were to Social Service inspectors who checked our accounts.
“That’s wonderful dear,” she said. “You’re so lucky not to have a real job.”
Here’s the second memory. I remember my fourth child, our son Dan, being born one winter evening, purple and struggling for breath. I remember my husband pouring water over his head as we baptized him in my arms. I remember the young Filipina doctor rushing Dan to intensive care. I remember the ten days of his fighting for life. And I remember Dan’s diagnosis, when it finally came in: Down syndrome.
Here’s the third memory. I remember my father, a successful young Chicago attorney, telling me why the Democratic party was the party of “our people,” and why so many Catholics were Democrats, and why the party stood for the little guy, the poor and the defenseless. I remember listening as a young girl in our kitchen as Saul Alinsky organized my parents’ Catholic friends on racial and economic issues in our Chicago living room. And I remember the night in 1992 when Pennsylvania’s governor, Robert Casey, was denied a chance to talk against abortion at the Democratic national convention.
As I draw on those memories now, I reach certain conclusions. As a woman, mother, wife, and lifetime professional educator, I will vote, enthusiastically, for Sarah Palin as vice president this November. Even if the media pressure forces her from the ticket, I will vote against the Democratic party—partly because I respect John McCain and believe him to be the better candidate, but equally because I’m tired of the intransigence and condescension of the Democratic leadership on the abortion issue.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because I don’t need the Democratic platform’s belated affirmation of motherhood. Thanks, but I already know that motherhood is good, several times over. Moreover, the party’s rediscovery of motherhood seems rather cynical in the current news cycle, while Democratic-friendly bloggers and media types bash Palin about her daughter’s pregnancy and her own busy schedule while bringing up children. How can a real sympathy for motherhood come from the same people who wrote a platform that hardens the party’s addiction to a phony right to kill the unborn?
I will vote for Sarah Palin because she has guts. We’ve never met, but I suspect I know something about her life, and so do a great many other women. I know what it means to have a son with Down syndrome. I know what it means to talk a good line about religious faith and then be asked to prove it. I know what it means to have a daughter pregnant and unmarried.
In fact, while we’re on the subject, I also know what it means to have two grandchildren born out of wedlock, a son struggling with alcohol, two grandchildren with serious disabilities, putting myself through graduate school while simultaneously caring for a husband and children and teaching full time—and a whole lot more. This is the stuff of real human love; this is the raw material of family life. And those who think that Palin’s beliefs and family struggles are funny or worth jeering at, simply reveal the venality of their own hearts.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because she is intelligent, tenacious and talented. Nobody made her rise easy, and no one is making it easy now. And—is it only moms who notice this?—unlike Senator Biden, she does seem to act consistently on her beliefs about the sanctity of life, at considerable personal cost.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because she doesn’t come from Washington or New York or Chicago or anywhere else the political and media aristoi like to hang out. In fact, I especially like the idea that the state she governs actually produces something—like some of the oil that powers the hair dryers and klieg lights at MSNBC.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because Roe v. Wade is bad law, and it needs to fall. I don’t doubt the intelligence and character of men like Doug Kmiec, the younger Bob Casey, and others who sympathize with the Obama campaign. But I do doubt their judgment. At the end of the day, the Democratic party in 2008 has conceded nothing to pro-life Democrats. The fact that Sen. Obama listens respectfully to pro-lifers without calling them reactionary dunces does not constitute progress. Results and behavior are what matter. On both those counts, the party has again failed to show any real sensitivity to pro-life concerns. In that light, high profile Catholics who support Obama are simply rationalizing their surrender on Roe.
Finally, I will vote for Sarah Palin, not because I’ve left the Democratic party of my youth and young adulthood, but because that party has left me. In fact, it no longer exists. And no amount of elegant speaking, exciting choreography, and moral alibis will bring it back.
That’s the real tragedy of this election.
Suann Therese Maier, the mother of four and former director of non-profit support organizations for pregnant women and children with disabilities, is a teacher in Colorado.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The Candidate of Change and Unity
If present trends continue, Democrats soon will be treating Democrats as shabilly as they do Republicans. They will be saying, "She lied to get us into an election." And, "He's the worst candidate in history. And he won't do anything for the children." And the accusation that will speak to the soul of left wing Democrats, "A vote for him/her is a vote for America. Only you can stop this."
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Surrender Donkeys
A couple of weeks ago I saw a moronic Democratic politician on TV. He had a very self satisfied air as he argued against the war in Iraq. He seemed to feel that, to prove the war wrong he needed only to show that people had died or been injured, period. And I think this is at the core of all of the lefties’ arguments: nothing is worth fighting or dying for so if someone has fought or died their cause is wrong. Most of them dress it up fancier but this is the core. They are antiAmerican only accidently: they would be against anything that would require bother or sacrifice. And they wouldn’t speak against jihadis because that might cause them bother or sacrifice. They are perpetual children trying to act like adults without knowing how.
By this measure we lost WW I and WW II. We had many dead and wounded in each: a sure sign it wasn't worth it. I guess the significant question to this guy is: "Where can I surrender and can I do it faster than Hillary or Barry?"
By this measure we lost WW I and WW II. We had many dead and wounded in each: a sure sign it wasn't worth it. I guess the significant question to this guy is: "Where can I surrender and can I do it faster than Hillary or Barry?"
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Los Angeles School District Payroll Dept. Becoming as Incompetent as Teaching Staff
The Los Angeles spent $95 million on a new computer payroll system. Ever since the new system has been in use many employees have not been paid the correct amount or been paid at all. One teacher died and she is still being paid. Her daughter has been unable to get the school district to take the money back. The head of payroll, after 5 months of checks sent to a deceased teacher, acts like he never heard of the problem. That seems to be much of the problem: the people in the payroll department have a real fuck you attitude. The trouble shooters will not return calls, promise follow ups that never happen, make agreements and then unilaterally change the conditions mutually agreed to. And the head of the payroll department apparently still doesn’t think there is a problem. His employees don’t care if the problems get solved and he won’t own the problem. Looks like the problem is nowhere near going away.
If present trends continue the work output of the payroll department will be as bad as literacy and education in the children whose future apparently is of no concern to the teachers. Maybe some of the difficulty arises from the payroll department hiring graduates of the LA school system. You can have a $95 million computer system but if you can barely read, write or cipher you might not get much help from a computer. Maybe the guys in trouble shooting are just displaying as little interest in teachers’ pay as the teachers displayed in their education.
One of the elementary school teachers mentioned in the coverage makes $90,000 a year. There’s little discipline and the kids can’t read or write but this woman is being paid as if productivity were going on. Obviously good pay does not equal good teaching.
The bigger picture: all of this is good for the Democratic party. The less educated the voters are the better it is for Democrats. If you have no fund of knowledge, lack the skills to get any and lack the ability to think clearly the more likely it is that you will be susceptible to the emotional appeals and guilt bombs that are the stuff of Democratic campaigning.
If present trends continue the work output of the payroll department will be as bad as literacy and education in the children whose future apparently is of no concern to the teachers. Maybe some of the difficulty arises from the payroll department hiring graduates of the LA school system. You can have a $95 million computer system but if you can barely read, write or cipher you might not get much help from a computer. Maybe the guys in trouble shooting are just displaying as little interest in teachers’ pay as the teachers displayed in their education.
One of the elementary school teachers mentioned in the coverage makes $90,000 a year. There’s little discipline and the kids can’t read or write but this woman is being paid as if productivity were going on. Obviously good pay does not equal good teaching.
The bigger picture: all of this is good for the Democratic party. The less educated the voters are the better it is for Democrats. If you have no fund of knowledge, lack the skills to get any and lack the ability to think clearly the more likely it is that you will be susceptible to the emotional appeals and guilt bombs that are the stuff of Democratic campaigning.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
War Memorial Desecration
I read recently read about a Viet Nam veteran war memorial being desecrated with graffiti. The writing appeared to be signed by the MS 13 gang. My first reaction was that it does not make sense for them to be so openly involved in politics. I thought such involvement might just make it more difficult for them to operate their business and so they might tend to be adverse to such publicity. I can only guess at what is going on here. I did a small amount of research. I've lived in southern California since 1966 and have seen a lot of graffiti. I presently live in an enclave that just does not have graffiti so I haven't seen as much in the last few years. But my first reaction to seeing the writing on the memorial was that it was unlike much of what I have seen. Most of what I have seen is much more stylized and difficult to read. But I am sure there are police officers with the LAPD and near New Haven that have some expertise in identifying and authenticating graffiti.
The more I thought about it, the more I realized that my thought that businessmen would not enter into politics might not apply here. They might not think there is much of a down side to an appeal to racial war. These gangs have grown up and thrived in areas controled by Democrats. And the Democrat party is obsessed with race and exacerbates racial divisions in order to increase their power. MS 13 might have felt that the establishment that they have grown up with and thrived under would be happy to see racially inspired chaos encouraged. Also they have been endemic in sancturary cities. So the establishment they have known has no respect for law and discourages respect for law in others. These gang members might only be doing what they have been taught by example.
Though, it still remains a possibility that this act was carried out by someone other than MS 13.
The more I thought about it, the more I realized that my thought that businessmen would not enter into politics might not apply here. They might not think there is much of a down side to an appeal to racial war. These gangs have grown up and thrived in areas controled by Democrats. And the Democrat party is obsessed with race and exacerbates racial divisions in order to increase their power. MS 13 might have felt that the establishment that they have grown up with and thrived under would be happy to see racially inspired chaos encouraged. Also they have been endemic in sancturary cities. So the establishment they have known has no respect for law and discourages respect for law in others. These gang members might only be doing what they have been taught by example.
Though, it still remains a possibility that this act was carried out by someone other than MS 13.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
How Many of You Backwoods Morons Don't Believe In Evolution?
Anderson Cooper says, "We are even more insulting to the Democratic candidates. But the vast majority of Americans are just too stupid to understand. Do you really expect someone who voted for Bush to appreciate the fine subtleties of my mind?"
Why do people insist on calling them Youtube debates? No one at Youtube has ever chosen even one of the questions. Any characterization beyond, 'the debate that has a distant and tenuous affiliation with Youtube' is dishonest. The most accurate name would be, 'the CNN lefty run farce.'
People complain endlessly about who becomes our president but don't seem to have any problem with so much of the decision being based on a process my junior high school class would have been ashamed to employ. Maybe the stupid choice wasn't so much who as how we decide who. I'd like to blame the liberals but I can't. We are all responsible for this mess.
Why do people insist on calling them Youtube debates? No one at Youtube has ever chosen even one of the questions. Any characterization beyond, 'the debate that has a distant and tenuous affiliation with Youtube' is dishonest. The most accurate name would be, 'the CNN lefty run farce.'
People complain endlessly about who becomes our president but don't seem to have any problem with so much of the decision being based on a process my junior high school class would have been ashamed to employ. Maybe the stupid choice wasn't so much who as how we decide who. I'd like to blame the liberals but I can't. We are all responsible for this mess.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Is Anyone Responsible for Anything?
I recently read some lefty blog or news source saying that the Republican party is using the immigration issue to put a wedge between Democratic leaders and Democratic voters. This has got to be some variant of new speak. The voters are against encouraging or supporting illegal immigration and Democrats in congress don't seem to care about enforcing our immigration laws or protecting our borders. How is that the fault of the Republicans? I used to think that the lefties had some complex formula for finding who is responsible for anything. It is more difficult to understand than string theory but it is there somewhere. Something along the lines of: if you and the last three generations of your family are 50.00001% descended from certain approved minorities (chosen every four years by the Democrat superdelagates) then the full weight of dead white men and Republicans have somehow deprived you of any power of choice and have raped you in every possible way. I have come to believe it is really not so complex. I think it is as simple as, 'if it is a good thing the Democrats caused it and if it is a bad thing the Republicans caused it (and we'll create some semi-intellectual blather to explain it especially since all the leftie college professors quit teaching years ago and have plenty of time to spend creating b. s. ex nihilo).'
Friday, October 26, 2007
Superdelegates
Why doesn't anyone ever talk about superdelegates? It seems that the Democratic party got tired of people like George McGovern and Jimmy Carter being chosen as their presidential candidates. So, now about one third of the delegates are given delegate spots because they are reliable party regulars (use your own imagination as to what that might mean). These delegates, the superdelegates, are not chosen in caucuses or primaries. They are put in place by the party establishment. The fact that the superdelegates are one third of the total delegates means that the party establishment has a virtual veto over most candidates. It can also be deduced that a candidate with 18% of the popular support could become the final candidate. If we compare the Democratic party to a party that chooses its delegates based on primary and caucus votes, a rank and file Democrat's primary vote is worth one third less. If anyone has a friend who is a Democrat, pointing this out to them might be doing them a favor since it is not information that is commonly known.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
