Dick Morris Rips Demmys

Good article on Democratic pathetic stances on the Patriot Act and terror....

And yet they complain about our dependency on foreign oil!

The hypocrisy is so sad.

Another Shining Example of Media Bias

The article calls them "migrants" not illegal aliens (which they are). The whole article is one sided and that side is anti-U.S.. It does not explain the position of the U.S., in regards to law, homeland security, national sovereignty and the general RIGHT to do what it wants on it's own borders!!! Pathetic!!!

Smiling Harry during the signing of the Patriot Act

Drudge has a good photo of Harry Reid smiling during Bush's signing of the Patriot Act, when it was originally put into law. I'm sure he would have us all believe that he voted against it. He would make Kerry very proud.

Most Corrupt Congress??

Sen. Harry Reid

How can Harry Reid say this is the most corrupt congress (read Republican)?

Here's a good list of Democrat corruption scandals, seems like Mr. Reid forgot about all of that.

Oh, yeah, and the Clinton Legacy

Not to say that Republicans aren't corrupt also, I think all politicians have some sort of corruption, it's part and parcel of "you scratch my back I scratch yours" but it's very hypocritical for the Democrats to get all huffy about Republican Corruption, as far as I can tell most of the "corruption" they are accused of are standard practice in Washington.

Enviro-Retards are very funny!

Apparently Christmas is bad for the environment! They mean human activity is bad for the environment. These people are considered competent to operate heavy machinery! It doesn't make sense!

Watch out you libbys! The Economy is good!!

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/13296823.htm

http://www.insidebayarea.com/businessnews/onthemove/ci_3268015

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20051215:MTFH70934_2005-12-15_00-01-56_N14305590:1

More Good News

Sorry lefties!

Some More Whiny Liberal Blogs

Economic Whiner

Social Whiner

Environmental Whiner

Political Whiner

Such well-balanced whining going on... how pleasant.

So Life in Iraq Is Not as Bad as those Lefties Say!

Pathetic Lefty's View Of Bush

According to this poll of Iraqis life is good in Iraq. You wouldn't know this from major lefty bloggers such as This Blog, Another Blog, A Third Blog, Yet Another Blog... The list goes on. Just as long as Bush is the devil that's all that matters. So pathetic!

Abu Ghraib Syndrome Invading American High Schools!

As Rush said it, the destructive terroristic tendencies of the American Military has influenced the culture of authority of the American School System! The horror!

Jamie Gorelick: Typical Leftie Hypocrite

Jamie Gorelick created many rules and regulations to prohibit the sharing of information between the FBI and the CIA, now she is criticizing the government for not lifting these regulations fast enough without mentioning SHE was the one who made it the "wall" it was!

That's a Nice Looking Prius!

I didn't know Toyota makes a Prius that looks like a BMW... very cool!

Leonardo DiCaprio: A Normal Environmentalist Hypocrite

I see that Leonardo Dicaprio is coming out with an environmentalist movie. He drives a Prius, all very nice and good but he uses a private jet, even though he claims he doesn't. A jet burns more fuel in one flight than the difference between what a prius versus an Escalade saves in gas for over five years!
A prius is a good status symbol for being a good enviro-boy, but as with most of these Holly-Mentals: The environment is best served hypocritical. "Do as I say, not as I do"

Interesting Article on Global Warming

It has some interesting points.

If Monday Night Football was Reported Like The Iraq War

This is such a great article. A must read!

Analysis of Bush's Failure

This is a good article on how Bush's failure to respond to his critics on the Iraq War effected his poll numbers and public opinion on the war.

Why Are Environmentalists Athiests?

Assuming that most of the hard-core environmentalists are atheist. They believe the perfect harmony of "mother nature" (some sort of non-religious deity) is upset by the meddling of "man" (an unnatural being). I don't understand how this perfect harmony is created in such a haphazard statistically impossible and unexplained way known as evolution. If the world developed in such a crazy way, how can man, one of those haphazard creations, be able to destroy it so easily?

Picture of Mother Nature on Vacation

1. Wouldn't "man" be accounted for by "mother nature" and evolve the planet to our (destructive) needs? Why should "man" change for "mother nature"? Shouldn't "mother nature" in her (haphazard) benevolence create a solution for man?

2. Is "man" somehow different or better? If "man" can bring down "mother nature" then maybe he is superior to "her." Is "mother nature" somehow tied in with evolution? Is man an anomaly of evolution? Is man a mistake from evolution? How can evolution make a mistake? If it wasn't a mistake then we must have evolved into a higher form of being over all others. If we are better than other beings, be they animals, trees etc, then that would mean our needs are paramount to all others!

3. How can this haphazard creation (from evolution) "man" be able to destroy the perfect harmony of "mother nature"? Isn't "man" also a perfectly harmonious being? Didn't evolution make "man" harmonious? Why do our needs so conflict with "mother nature" more than any other beings? Are we better or worse? If we are worse then how come we evolved the way we did? Aren't all other animals and trees part of the harmony known as "mother nature"? If we are better then aren't our needs paramount?

4. How can environmentalists & evolutionists be atheists? Perfect harmony is NOT natural, for something to evolve it must have happened by accident. If NOT by accident then something "helped" it along, which would point to another "being." If by accident then how can so many accidents happen across the entire planet? Galaxy? Universe? I'm not a mathematician, but for all these "accidents" (from the creation of opposable thumbs, to the retina in a turtle, to the internal workings of osmosis) to happen in only a few billions of years is impossible. For so many accidents to work out in perfect harmony to create the order we know today is impossible. Impossible without some sort of "helping hand."

Anyway, those are my thoughts, hope it was clear.

On The Topic of Polls & Wal-Mart

This is an enlightening article for two reasons:

Firstly, it discusses how polls can be manipulated by a special interest group (which commissioned the poll). An intense media campaign can change a small-medium percentage (10-25%) of people for a limited amount of time.

Secondly, I find it strange that Wal-Mart is such a monster because they offer items, people want to buy, for cheap. I understand that the unions want to make Wal-Mart unionized. If that would happen, do you think they would be able to keep their costs as low? Do you think they would be able to keep their prices as low?

Unions don't mean better workers, all they mean are more expensive workers. In todays work environment the need for unions has diminished. With so many labor laws this is not the work environment of the late 1800's and early 1900's. There are plentiful fire exits, anti-discrimination laws, sexual harassment laws and the list goes one. Their definitely was a need in the past for unions, but today that need is gone. At most, they are useful at times.

The reason why I bring up unions is because they are the number one opponent of Wal-Mart. Most workers today are NOT union members and, I believe, it should stay that way. Wal-Mart is able to keep their costs down and they past that savings on to the consumer. I would imagine a large number of the people who had a negative opinion of Wal-Mart in the poll shop there! If Wal-Mart's critics would have their way would these same people be happy spending more for the same products? Probably not.

The Jury is in on Bush

This is funny, I would imagine it will be the butt of many upcoming jokes. It would be pretty funny if he was obligated to be on a jury. I'm sure SNL will have a skit on it to give their take.

I Like This Cartoon

It's from Newsbusters.org

Analysis of Polls Are a Reflection of Bias

This poll reported by CNN is a classic example of how data from polls are manipulated to reflect a certain viewpoint. In the article it says, "But the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday night also found nearly six in 10 Americans said U.S. troops should not be withdrawn from Iraq until certain goals are achieved."

But the headline is: "Poll: Most doubt Bush has plan for Iraq victory." While it's true, according to the poll results, 55 to 41 percent agreed with that comment, it is also true "nearly six in 10 Americans" agreed with the comment above, that sounds like more than 55%. So why did they focus on the negative for Bush's position and not the positive?

Also it says, "Those polled were split over whether they think a democratic government can be established in Iraq that won't be overthrown, with 47 percent saying that was likely and 49 percent saying it was not. "

In contrast it says, "Asked if the war will make the United States safer from terrorism in the long run, 48 percent said yes and 43 percent no, within the poll's sampling error." Why specify that it's within the poll's sampling error over here and not in the previous paragraph?! It had a larger, percentage-wise, difference in opinion!! Seems like it wants to limit the positive and enhance the negative for Bush's position. Another thing I don't understand is, in the article it says the sampling error is +-5% and in the graph it says +-4%... Makes a difference in that paragraph.

It might seem an over-reaction to some but it's the subtle ways an article is written that creates, and manipulates, a certain subjective thought.

And, of course, they throw this in towards the end, "More than 2,100 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 toppled the government of dictator Saddam Hussein."

I'm NOT a conspiracy freak, but this type of journalism is manipulative.