About Me

Name: Mick O.
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Uncategorized

Ted Turner is a hypocrite!

Today on Rush Limbaugh's show, he played a sound byte of Ted Turner which infuriated me. How dare he blame us for global warming? First of all it's a hoax (just like the global cooling theory many years ago), but when he says it's caused because too many people have too much stuff, I almost exploded!
 
So why didn't the news reporter interviewing him ask, "then why don't you lead by example and start giving your stuff away?" Because the media lies! And for some reason, liberals never see the hypocrisy! Just like Al Gore, Turner is putting the blame on the rest of us while he lives his opulent lifestyle, and flies around in his corporate jets. If global warming IS happening and anyone is to blame, it is the likes of these two!
 
Yesterday I opined about the unintended consequences of rent control; how it hurts the very people it was implemented to help. Today, I wanted to write about the hypocrisy of ethanol and the law of unintended consequences, but reporter, Cinnamon Stillwell at the San Francisco Chronicle beat me to it with a brilliant piece today.
 
As it turns out, producing ethanol may cause more pollution than it saves by being used as a gasoline additive. For those of you who didn't pass 1st grade math, if it costs 10 to produce something and saves 8 to use it, that's a net loss of 2. Okay? Let's move on.
 
Add to that the price of any food that involves corn products (meat and poultry that use corn for feed) is skyrocketing, and you can see that this is a BAD idea. Corn that was once used as food is now being used for ethanol! But here's the kicker... You and I are paying the difference in the form of government subsidies. So not only is it not cost effective to produce ethanol (means they can't make money producing and selling ethanol on its own merit), but we taxpayers must also subsidize the producers so they can make enough money to be profitable. If it's such a good idea it would be able to make it on its own... Like plasma televisions and DVD players that all started costing a lot of money, the price eventually came down and they are still making money... no government subsidies there!
 
I know I read somewhere that Ted Turner owns farm land that is being subsidized by us, either by NOT planting on it or for growing corn that is being used for ethanol. Either way, you'd think we'd at least get a thank you card from the guy. What a jerk.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberals are DUMB!

Rush Limbaugh proved it. Today on his show a caller said her daughter thought Obama looks like Curious George. Rush laughed (maybe at the funny name) but claimed later that he had never heard of the character and was laughing to be polite to his caller.
 
Shortly after his explanation and APOLOGY, an African-American (obviously) named Tanisha (or something like that) called in and basically called Rush a liar. She said there is no way he could possibly have never heard of Curious George, and stubbornly stuck to her belief.
 
My question to her is this... how come she believes that Rush is lying and claims to know when people are doing it, but does not realize when liberal politicians keep lying to her??? Guess she's not as smart as she thinks it is.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A word about inequality

Rush Limbaugh was brilliant on his Wednesday, February 27th third hour when he did his monologue on "inequality". So much so that it gave me other thoughts that might be relevant to the conversation.
 
Rush pointed out that the only place where equality exisits is in third world countries where everyone is equally poor and equally miserable. These are the people the liberal bleeding hearts run over to try and help with drilling wells for water, providing medical care and food, education and so on. Have the picture of those people in your mind?
 
Now tell me what they stand for. Taking our economy where people are trying to improve their situations (and can, for the most part) down to where everyone is equal. In other words, the capitalist success they have achieved is exactly what has enabled them to go to places like Africa to help the poor... yet they oppose that same system. Ironic, is it not? Look at Oprah. She succeeded because of her unique talents and ability to work the system into the empire she now enjoys. She can go to Africa and do great things. She is sponsoring a great giveaway show. So who does she support politically? Obama who would take every opportunity away from the rest of us to achieve what Oprah has achieved with his socialist policies! Ironic, is it not?
 
Once again, liberals think that if just the right people run the socialist state, this time it will work. Well, that's what Castro thought, that's what Hitler thought, that's what Stalin thought, and so on. Think about THAT!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama and our emotional reserves

Rush Limbaugh has pointed this out repeatedly. People only have so much in emotional reserves which is why Iraq has essentially gone away (except to the fine young men and women over there doing the heavy lifting!). As a result, the newspapers and other mainstream "driveby" media have shifted their focus to the next new thing because Americans (probably people in general), for better or worse, have a short attention span.
 
Next topic? Rockstar Obama who has people fainting at his rallies. That's what we want, a black John Lennon running the country. Problem is, his policies are still liberal! Big government control and higher taxes. This is a new idea??? This is change? It's exactly what has ruined great states like Louisiana and Michigan; liberal policies. Is it ever pointed out that continued voting for Democrats has ruined both of these states? NO! But I digress.
 
George Washington (from his biography by Paul Johnson) said that in his day, idealism is was what gets people interested in the beginning, but self interests are what perpetuate their actions. In other words, patriotism is what got the colonists to go to war during the Revolution, but what they would get out of it, i.e. land, status, control, was what kept them fighting even after suffering staggering losses. Take the promise of rewards away, and interest will follow. Washington noted that soldiers went of fighting for love of pay or promotions. 
 
Fast forward to today and see what our government has done to our self interests... taxed them, penalized them, put restrictions on them... but not so much that people stop producing, just enough to control the population and give to those who don't produce. This is what Obama is capitalizing on. He talks about change, but what change is he actually proposing? Sounds like more of the same to me.
 
Here's what I think. The United States politicians have over time erroded the American "ideal" by chipping away at our way of doing things in the guise of having our best interests at heart. (If it's in our best interests, why are they not subject to many of the laws that they pass?) Anyway, this is where we are, and so people are becoming more and more dependent on government. So are we surprised when a politician comes along and promises change they start fainting? I'm not! But he's not going to change anything. In fact, I predict it will be more of the same liberal policies that are hurting the greatness of our country. Shame.
 
One thing I see is this; the election cycle started way too early for there not to be some sort of lull before the general election. Perhaps the novelty of a black man finally being a front runner as a presidential candidate will last, but I don't think so. Eventually Obama will have to say something of substance. Rather than utter platitudes and vagaries, he is going to have to put forth some specifics if he expects to become president. Once those specifics come out, I am betting that the novelty of a black man running for president will trump anything he says policy-wise... and we'll get another Jimmy Carter. You'll see.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberalism is the WORST type of selfishness

Let me see if I can explain this in a way that people will understand. It makes sense to me, but sometimes putting things into words is a little more difficult. As with God, you can't explain it, you just believe.
 
Just so with liberalism. This morning it hit me as I listened to Friday's podcast of Rush Limbaugh, that his explanation of the events of the campus shooting was right on. This was a GUN FREE zone! So the gunman had no reason to fear that anyone would take him out before he accomplished his mission... to kill people. Just because the campus wished that it was a gun free zone doesn't make it so.
 
So I started asking myself some questions. Why are the same people who want to take the guns out of everyone's hands the same people who refuse to prosecute those who use them to commit crimes? Think about it. So the easy part will be to take away guns from law abiding citizens, but the hard, impossible really, part will be getting them from the crimminals.
 
There are actually people out there who think everyone is the same with the same wishes and desires and if we just reason with them all will be right with the world. We will have peace and everyone will sing Kumbaya or We are the World, hold hands and eat a tofu burger before driving off in their Toyota "Pious". Isn't that the ultimate form of selfishness?
 
First of all to think that their way is the ONLY way, and that their thinking is the same as GOD CONSCIOUSNESS. How self-centered. It's like those liberal programs. As long as the intent is right, the program must be good. It doesn't work, but don't look at the results. Of course the money spent on these programs would be better used if dropped off at the homeless shelter in a wheel barrow rather than filtered through the various public servants who syphon off their weekly salary before turning the crumbs left over to the needy. I often hear these people saying that they chose their job so they could give back... BULL! Selfishness, that's why they took the job. To pay their bills. To feed themselves and their children. To put gas in their Toyota "Pious". If you don't believe me, witness how they treat their "clients". That's what social workers call their cases now because it gives the homeless person more dignity. Like being called a client makes up for sleeping under a bridge.
 
I am very generous in my lifestyle and reward people for trying to do the right thing. I don't need the government syphoning off tax money that I earn to pay for people to do the good deeds for me. Simple as that. So in my opinion, liberals are actually selfish in that they would rather be taxed and let the government do the hard work rather than do it themselves. It's gutless and it's lazy. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Are people catching on to Hillary?

Hillary keeps playing class warfare, but seems to be losing. Although Obama says much the same thing (when he is pinned down) he is not as vocal as Hillary about taking corporations' profits. Maybe people are finally catching on that if Hillary does what she says, they could lose their jobs and/or investments. After all, if politicians can take the profits of corporation how are they supposed to pay dividends on their stocks? How are they supposed to expand their work force? Every day she shows more and more how she would do well in a communist society but not in a free market!
 
After all, what about Big Politics? Shouldn't their profits be taken too? Bill Clinton has made more money after leaving office than he did before he became president. So why not take those windfall profits and put them into a fund for developing tobacco products? Oh, that's right. Tobacco is BAD. Non-smokers are GOOD.
 
Day by day, Hillary has presented bad idea after bad idea. Since her Christmas "giveaway" commercials, she has continued to show who she really is. A Rush Limbaugh listener suggested Republicans in Texas and Ohio to cross over and vote for Obama so she can be defeated once and for all. As in the Wizaard of Oz, we want to see those dead legs sticking out from under that house!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Socialism for dummies

Glenn Beck prompted this update. Apparently he debated a "pinhead progressive", as the woman described herself, who wanted to discuss the positive aspects of socialism. From what I can tell, Glenn's response was that history has proved that every attempt at this form of government has failed. Although I am not an insider, I gleaned that the woman finally came around... But I am not sure.
Here's the deal. As a recovered socialist from the 60's, I now see the folly of my ways. I was envious of those rich people because of what they had, not because of what they had contributed. In other words, I was a sixties hippie scumbag musician caught up in a hedonistic world of sex, drugs and alcohol, and rock and roll. It was all about my pleasure and screw the rest of the world. But what was my contribution and was I being compensated for it? Probably.
 
At 40 in 1989, I became a recovered alcoholic (I know the popular term is recovering, but the Big Book says recovered) by working the steps of the program and came to believe in 1992 that Bill Clinton was the man to change things in Washington. About 2 years into his term, I realized that a politician could say anything and usually is not held accountable by the media (because they LIE for liberals).
 
That's when I started listening to Rush Limbaugh. I hated him at first and would yell obscenities at the radio before turning it off. My liberal mindset and decisions were being challenged, and I didn't like it. But for some reason I was drawn back to the show, mostly because it aired on my sports channel, and I was probaby waiting for a baseball game.  I am not sure when the light came on; it was probably about taxes and the fact that people voting Democrat was the reason they kept increasing. Sure, they said they would only tax the rich. I was all for that because I was poor. Get those rich guys. Problem is, in the eyes of the IRS, I was also considered rich... only I didn't know it. I mean I must have been because at $22,000 a year I was only taking home about 60% of my paycheck, and I had a daughter to feed and clothe.
 
I have always had a resentment toward the IRS and would like nothing more than to see it abolished and replaced with the Fair Tax, but if politicians can't take money and redistribute to buy votes, what are they going to do??? And Democrats are the worst of the bunch. This doesn't let Republicans off the hook since there are a lot of tax and spend RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) out there, but the Conservative Ideal should be lower taxes, smaller government, less government intervention in our lives and more personal responsibility. If it gets the government out of it, I am for it... in most cases.
 
When people complain about the money we are spending on the military and security, I laugh and say that this is about the only thing the government is spending money on that is justified by the constitution! All this other social spending is just that; socialism. But because the people who are benefiting from government giveaway programs also get to vote, these programs continue into perpetuity whether they work or not.
 
As a socialist I was a hard worker. That's why I thought it was unfair that other people made millions while I only made thousands. And a lot of people who still tout socialism as the way to go are probably hard workers and are looking at it from their vantage point. Let's take one example.
 
I am close to real estate, and I am surprised at the number of liberals who are Realtors. Granted it is San Francisco, but if ever the work  ethic abounds, it is in these people. I often hear them say they are happy to pay taxes to support these programs and that we should pay our fair share. Great. Problem is, I don't agree and we are lumped into those who either don't care, or are happy to send money along to Washington. Because they have a majority of elected officials who agree with them, I am forced to go along with it.
 
But let's take socialism a bit further. What do you think these same Realtors would say if the Federal Government put a limit on what they could make in commission for selling a house. Right now they get 2.5-3% of the sales price. But the Feds could easily say that's too much because it causes housing inflation. In fact, Obama recently blamed Realtors for the current housing mess because they are running up the prices of housing. Can you believe it? Truth be told, buyers and sellers are running up prices because they think the values are there.
 
I almost wish someone would propose such legislation so I could hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the San Francisco Board of Realtors. After all, if the Federal Government can go after CEOs and limit their salaries, why can't they go after Realtors who are making a boat load of money on every sale?  Why not decide on an amount per sale to give to the Realtor and give the rest to a fund that provides services to the homeLESS? It's sort of related to real estate, is it not? After all, Hillary Clinton has proposed the Federal Government take the "windfall profits" of the oil companies and put it into an alternative energy fund. So how is real estate any different? Big OIL versus Big Real Estate!
 
So now I come to my final observation. Let's talk about all the jobs where a "tip jar" is involved. Did you know that Democrats and some RINOs decided some time ago that service people had to declare a certain percentage of their wages as tips (whether they earned them or not) and pay tax on that? These are the people who they say they are trying to help. The poor minimum wagers. And who do the poor minimum wagers keep electing? The Democrats and RINOs because when these liberals keep talking about taxing the rich, they do not think they are in that category. But they are.
 
I challenge anyone to look at their paycheck stub, regardless of income. You will find that roughly 50% is taken every pay period for governement purposes. At the end of the year, most of these people only get a small percentage of that back as a refund, if any. In fact, most people end up paying! Now who's RICH? And do you know who's getting that money? Agencies that give services to homeless, unemployed and often illegal aliens who have never paid a dime into the system.
 
But you might say, "it's the compassionate thing to do." Feed a man or woman a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach the man or woman to fish and you feed them for a lifetime. Giving people money is only a temporary fix. If they use it to learn to fish, then I am all for it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »