[identity profile] brendala.livejournal.com
Scott Adams (the artist behind Dilbert) just released this blog post about why he feels compelled to vote for Romney despite the fact that he disagrees with about 90% of his policies. His reasoning is a little weird. But it's an interesting read (and pretty ballsy considering the industry he operates in).

The whole post is gold. But here's the money quote:

So while I don't agree with Romney's positions on most topics, I'm endorsing him for president starting today. I think we need to set a minimum standard for presidential behavior, and jailing American citizens for political gain simply has to be a firing offense no matter how awesome you might be in other ways.

My thoughts:

Read more... )
[identity profile] jessm78.livejournal.com
Ever since 2003, I've been an avid visitor of the website Freerepublic.com. Never joined but I lurked there and they put my fears to rest back in 2004 when the exit polls all showed John Kerry winning at first.

Now I'm over there and most of them are all harping on the fact that Obama is ahead in today's Rassmussen poll, I think 2 points ahead of Romney (although the internals don't make sense in that they're saying Romney is ahead with women while Obama is ahead with men; plus he's assuming Dems will have a bigger turnout this time... huh?). They're all saying what an awful candidate Romney is, that he'll be just like McCain and Dole in the debates, that this country is too busy loving their new "Obamaphones" and want government to take care of them and they'll all just reelect him.

This is seriously freaking me out. I just cannot think of 4 more years of Obama considering how bad things are. I know the media likes to demoralize us into not voting, a lot of the polls oversample Democrats, etc.

Yes, I know this country is vastly different now from the way it was even 20 years ago. And I know that the die-hard Obama fans will stick with him. But I'd like to think that the average Joe is a little concerned about the way things are going to want change.

I'm really worried for my future and that of my family and friends if this guy ends up being reelected. Someone please calm my fears before I slit my wrists. :(
[identity profile] jessm78.livejournal.com
I've been a subscriber on and off since the early 90s. I received a gift subscription about a year ago, which was fine because I like reading about some of my fave shows. Just received this week's issue and it really pissed me off.

They have an article in their "In the News" section entitled "The Conventions' Winners and Losers." For "winners", they include the speeches of both Michelle Obama and Ann Romney (must've really pained them to include her), the "partisan cable networks" (MSNBC and Fox News are mentioned for getting the most viewers during the DNC and RNC, respectively), and Bill Clinton, natch.

For the "losers", they pick everyone on the right: "The convention bounce", as in the lack of bounce for Romney following his convention; Clint Eastwood, and Sarah Palin.

I shouldn't have been surprised, but it just pisses me off how they perpetrate this garbage to prop up Obama. Romney actually did receive a small bounce after the RNC. Most polls I saw, including Reuters/Ipsos (which has been known to tilt left) and Rassmussen, showed him with a bounce between 4 and 6 points at least. But of course the media wouldn't make any mention of it. Meanwhile, according to pollsters, Obama did receive a bounce (though some of those polls I saw were pretty suspect based on the questions asked and oversampling Democrats... in one, Romney trailed by 5 points, but was leading by double digits with Independents) but it's already fading pretty quickly. Of course they don't want us to know this either. I fired off an email to them. They'll probably laugh and delete it, but I don't care. Had to let them know that not all of their readers appreciate this.

I know, you're thinking, "Well, what do you expect from them?" I do like TV Guide for info on my shows. But again, I'm just so sick and tired of them bending over backwards to show how slanted they are and to prop up this President. *shakes head*
[identity profile] jessm78.livejournal.com
I guess most of you guys either don't talk about politics much on your LJs or you have mostly conservatives on your flist. But for those of you who have liberal flisters, have you experienced any provoking comments yet?

I have an flister who I've met in person a few times. She's a really nice girl but a very strong-minded liberal. Despite our very different political views, we get along well and don't really discuss politics. Today she made a post showing off a button a friend gave her that said "Dogs Against Romney" on it. She told us she was voting for Obama, how strongly held her beliefs are, and five reasons that she's a liberal. She said at the end that she's fine with agreeing to disagree. I told her that's what I love about her, that she can at least be respectful of opposing views. But one of her friends (who isn't on my flist) decides to say "If you have a vagina and are voting the Ronney/Ryan ticket, I judge you. I judge you hard."

It's comments like this that annoy me because they seem like they're looking for a fight. I'm sure this person thinks that not everyone on my friend's flist has the same exact beliefs. And I'm sure there are some out there, but none of the conservatives or libertarians on my flist say things like this. It always seems to be the liberals. More than four years ago a former (thank goodness) flister was ranting "I HATE THE ASSHOLES WHO VOTED FOR BUSH!"

99% of my flist are liberals, so I have a filter for political posts that includes like-minded friends. I know it's my LJ and I should be able to say whatever I want, but I don't feel like slinging mud back and forth with people I otherwise get along with. Has anyone else had to deal with such provoking garbage before? Hoping I'm not alone, lol. I have a feeling it's going to get worse as the weeks go by. *sigh*


Jun. 21st, 2012 11:09 pm
[identity profile] dreadfulpenny00.livejournal.com
During today's press briefing at the White House regarding Obama's refusal to disclose documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious, Jake Tapper posed a question to WH Press Secretary Jay Carney and his response (in my opinion) was gut-wrenching.

Q Jay, just one last question. The family of Brian Terry, the slain Border Patrol agent at whose murder scene at least two of these guns were found, they disagree with your characterization about these investigations. They say that the Attorney General’s refusal to fully disclose the documents associated with Fast and Furious and President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege serves to compound this tragedy. It denies the Terry family and the American people the truth. That’s a statement from the Terry family lawyer.

MR. CARNEY: Look, we absolutely agree with the need to find out the truth about why Fast and Furious happened, why the tactic that, again, was employed in the previous administration in different operations and was stopped by this Attorney General -- why it came about. And that’s why the Attorney General referred it to the Inspector General. That is why we have provided Congress every document that pertains to the operation itself that is at issue here when you talk about the family that you referred to. And --

Q The Terry family.

MR. CARNEY: The Terry family. And that is separate from an attempt by members of Congress, Republican members of Congress, to try to score political points -- as Senator Grassley referred to his desire for a “political scalp” -- that is separate from trying to find out the truth about what happened in this operation, which this administration has been pursuing since the Attorney General discovered it.
"The family that you referred to" - because, let's face it, the Obama administration doesn't even care. Not a single person is bothered by the fact that they're trying to spin this and once again pin blame on the Bush administration (or other previous administrations) and they fail to remember, as Carney so perfectly proved, that a U.S. citizen (and more than one, to be honest) died at the hands of Mexican drug runners using guns put in their hands by the U.S. government. Not Holder. Not Obama. Not Carney. There's just no excuse for this bull!
[identity profile] dreadfulpenny00.livejournal.com
Mediaite posted an article yesterday titled Romney's Solyndra? State-Funded Massachusets Solar Company Goes Bankrupt in which comparisons are made between a solar company in Lowell, Massachusetts called Konarka and Solyndra, a California-based solar company in California. Both received government funding to keep their operations going and both are connected with the main two current Presidential candidates. However, there are some major differences between the two.

One of these things is not like the other... )

There's a world of difference between a Governor investing in a corporation within his own state to ensure job creation and the President of the United States floating a company a half-million dollar loan to fulfill a lofty campaign promise. There's also a big difference in a company that goes bankrupt eight years after getting $1.5 million in state government funding and a company that goes bankrupt one year after getting $527 million in federal government funding. I just hope the American voting public is smart enough to notice the difference but if the 2008 election is any indication, they're not.

X-posted from [livejournal.com profile] dreadfulpenny00 and to [livejournal.com profile] conservatalk

Note to mods: Any way we can get hashtags for "business" and "mitt romney"? Thanks!
[identity profile] kelincihutan.livejournal.com

Breitbart.com has an interesting take on this, which is that this is yet another example of Obama manipulating his public persona for different purposes at different times. And certainly, he is known to do that.

I have never been a birther. I've always felt it was just too much of a conspiracy theory for me to really buy into. I think this is weird, but beyond that...I dunno. The article is essentially documentation of the vetting and fact-checking BigGov did on this piece of information. So I put it to y'all, who are informed and intelligent people: what do you think about this?
[identity profile] jessm78.livejournal.com
Many times I've felt like posting about this in my own LJ, but can never work up the courage as 99% of my flist are liberal. So I figured I'd post where people understand.

Read more... )
[identity profile] kelincihutan.livejournal.com
In reading the news articles lately, I would almost say that a good portion of the left side of the nation is shocked--shocked, they tell us--that the Supreme Court has any kind of power at all. Most of us are content to await the Supreme Court to finish doing precisely the job they Constitutionally exist for, but apparently the idea that the High Court exists to determine the constitutionality of one statute or another--as opposed to creating new ones out of whole cloth when somebody couldn't get something through Congress--comes as news to some people.

First there's Obama himself, who claimed that "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," and that "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law is a good example [of judicial activism] and I'm pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step." (Ums, ers, pauses, and filler words removed.) As if a seven-vote passage in the House is a "strong majority" or something. And since is grasp of recent history is so shaky, I suppose it's unsurprising that his comprehension of the Constitution--which must, on such a scale, be considered as old as dirt--and the history of the Supreme Court, is even worse. Apparently someone got with him later, as he did try to walk back from some of the more outrageous bits.

Then there's this article from The Atlantic urging Obama to run "against the Supreme Court." The article makes cases against two potential objections to this, neither of which--interestingly--are "What could he possibly accomplish by running against the only branch that doesn't get elected whist trying to be elected to the only branch that is uninvolved in amending the Constitution?" While I agree with the author in their conclusion that the Supreme Court is not above criticism or politics, they seem to think that Obama has any kind of ability to do anything to them.

But that's not all. The Atlantic also reminds us "You're confusing the poor Europeans!" The Daily Beast wants us to know that "Obama didn't really say anything that remarkable." Not to mention Media Matters helpfully pointing out to everyone, "There's no precedent for striking down legislation under the commerce clause for the last seventy-five years, and that's ages ago so it doesn't count!" And this is just the tip of the enormous hysterical iceberg. There's lots more.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone has read the Constitution at all.

cross-posted to right-angles on DW
[identity profile] bookwrm17.livejournal.com
We're all familiar with the left's hypocrisy when it comes to denouncing misogynistic or otherwise offensive comments by conservatives, but tolerating them when they're said by fellow liberals.

I thought this video did a pretty good job of highlighting the issue with regards to Bill Maher and his donation to Obama's re-election campaign:

You might consider passing it around to see what your left-leaning friends have to say. ;)
[identity profile] dreadfulpenny00.livejournal.com
On his show tonight, Bill O'Reilly busted the doors wide open as to what's REALLY going on with Sandra Fluke. How is a Georgetown law student able to go all over the place to do interviews and who is scheduling them? Turns out it's someone with connections to the White House!

Mediate tells the full story (with video): http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly-asks-who-is-running-sandra-fluke-it-all-goes-back-to-white-house/

It turns out SKDKnickerbocker, a PR agency, is representing Fluke (with most of her interview requests going through someone named "Mike"). Who happens to be managing editor? None other than Anita "Mao Tse" Dunn, Barack Obama's former communications director. Dunn is also currently a contributor for NBC News/MSNBC/CNBC. This is the same woman who claimed that Fox News was an arm of the Republican Party. As if MSNBC isn't an arm of the Democratic Party?

So now we know what's really going on here - former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the charge for a mock hearing, invited the press to cover it, and then hired professional activist Sandra Fluke to testify. I doubt their intent was to sink Limbaugh or anyone else, but it was definitely an opportunity to drudge up press for the Obama administration any way they could get it. Now Dunn's taken Fluke under her wing.

I'm getting so disgusted with this administration and their misuse and abuse of the media and free speech. I feel what Limbaugh said was wrong, but to use it to attempt to sink him while Fluke herself is a fraud is inexcusable. This is another reason why the Obama administration needs to be out of the White House!
[identity profile] kelincihutan.livejournal.com
This week there is a story that I feel is big enough to justify the use of bold and italics. And I'm afraid that isn't as funny as I wish it would be.

United States )

World )

Life Issues in the News )
[identity profile] kelincihutan.livejournal.com
Most of you probably already heard about Indiana's passage of a law that defunded Planned Parenthood within that state. Though the law is being challenged in the courts (which is something I find extraordinarily problematic, to say the least), it is currently in effect because the judge in the case would not issue an injunction against it.

So, Obama & co. are now threatening to take action against the law in order to keep money flowing into PP coffers.

Argh! )
[identity profile] dark-weezing.livejournal.com
I've been posting at my Palin comm about today's MSM meme, comparing Sarah Palin's video response vs. President Obama's memorial speech, last night. I was going to take a break from posting on here, but I am compelled by Allahpundit's fair job in summing up both the Palin/Obama compare/contrast and the latest MSM meme, which is based on the Mark Halperin entry I had posted, a few days ago. (The short refresher is, "how dare the Right defend itself after the Left directly or indirectly accuses them of murder without any evidence.")

Link: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/13/media-meme-o-the-day-obamas-speech-was-much-more-presidential-than-palins/

Link: http://community.livejournal.com/therightfangirl/1366951.html

If anyone wishes to comment on said Palin/Obama compare/contrast, as I'm sure many of you have read at various places, by all means. I must say AP has been particularly insightful on all this, especially on the Left's "political voodoo" theory, which now passes for current Leftist "logic." (Insert your own Earth Logic joke.)

Exit quotation: "To the speechwriters: For extra credit on your assignment, figure out a “presidential” way to explore the theme, “I Didn’t Beam Homicidal Mind Control Rays into that Crazed Gunman’s Brain.” The big joke here, of course, is that the only “presidential” way Palin could have handled this — according to the media, I mean — would be to simply let this whole thing slide. That’s what presidents do, right? Thick skin, stiff upper lip, even when their enemies are being terribly unfair to them. When it comes to politics, that’s business as usual. My point this week, though, and Ace’s point at his site, has been that this episode isn’t business as usual. This isn’t some standard “Palin’s using rhetorical dog whistles for her Christian base!” attack. This is a congresswoman bleeding out of her head on the sidewalk with six bodies lying around her, one of them a little girl, and Palin being blamed for it instantly. And yet according to Keith Ellison, the proper response here should have been to validate that accusation by implication by saying, gee, yeah, I guess I should have toned it down. I’m not known for being a Palin fan (as, er, any actual Palin fan could tell you) and even I can’t contain my indignation at the charge. And yet she’s supposed to just mellow out and take it because political reporters who won’t flatly correct the record for their readers think it’s bad “optics” to do otherwise? Unbelievable."
[identity profile] modernelegance.livejournal.com
Republicans breathed easy for half an hour while Bill Clinton was in charge. I never thought I would be so relieved and excited to see Bill acting as President...

What had the West Wing buzzing was the scene itself: Clinton in his element, like he had never left. And almost like he wasn't going to leave this time.

For one remarkable half hour, Clinton turned a seemingly slow Friday afternoon into his stage.

He tutored in loving detail about economic theory and nuclear disarmament. He was short on time, yet somehow found some for just one more question. He bit on his lip and spread his arms as he spoke and did all those other familiar gestures.

"Oh, I had quite a good time governing," a smiling Clinton said. "I am happy to be here, I suppose, when the bullets that are fired are unlikely to hit me."

There are more details at the yahoo source and as always, excellent commentary from Hot Air.
[identity profile] merig00.livejournal.com
[livejournal.com profile] sorris0 (journal is in russian, I'm just citing the source) posted this in his LJ. Don't you want to buy one for your kid? :D

the rest is under cut )
[identity profile] lazypadawan.livejournal.com
For reals...somebody has put a musical stage show on in Germany called "Hope: Das Interaktiv-Musical Einen Neuen Generation" (ooh, it's "interaktiv!"). You have to see it to believe it:

I don't know about you, but I was tearing up at that tender Obama 'n Michelle duet. I'm not sure if the big lady with the gray hair singing in German was supposed to be Janet Napolitano performing "The System Worked." I think the preview also left out the big gospel number in Rev. Wright's church.

More info about this exciting entertainment extravaganza here:

[identity profile] spikedpunch.livejournal.com
Eight times Obama promised for the healthcare debates to be televised on C-SPAN:

Obama Reneges on Health Care Transparency.
By Chris Reid
WASHINGTON, Jan. 6, 2010
(CBS) President Obama wants the final negotiations on health care reform - a reconciliation of the House and Senate versions of the bill - put on a fast track, even if that means breaking an explicit campaign promise.

"The House and Senate plan to put together the final health care reform bill behind closed doors according to an agreement by top Democrats," House Speaker Nanci Pelosi said today at the White House.

The White House is on board with that, too, reports CBS News political correspondent Chip Reid. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed today that "the president wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible."

Pelosi Turns Up Her Nose at Transparency.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took what many saw as a swipe at President Obama during a news conference Tuesday. When a reporter asked if C-SPAN video crews would have access to the House-Senate negotiations on health care reform legislation, as then-candidate Obama promised numerous times on the campaign trail, the speaker had a quick response:




PELOSI: There were a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.



A Pelosi aide later said the remark was a quip and not a jab at anyone.


therightfangirl: (Default)
The Right Fangirl

May 2017

 12345 6
789 10 111213
14 15 1617181920
2122 2324252627


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 02:34 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios