About Me

Name: Mick O.
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Uncategorized

John Edwards IS a bumper sticker

Posted by Mick O. on Monday, July 16, 2007 3:49:17 PM
John Edwards has been saying that "the war on terror" is a bumper sticker slogan used by Bush to excuse the NSA wiretaps, Gitmo and other efforts used in to thwart the bad guys. Then he turns around and says, but he'll protect the American people. The American people should have one question: HOW?

And how about this Poverty tour of his? I'm told all the people he interviewed were overweight people. Go to Nigeria and see how many overweight people there are because of their poverty. In fact, the only way these people he is visiting with will be better off when he leaves is if he gives them each a check for $100,000.

Why not? He wants to give them YOUR money in taxes, why not just show how it's done. Mr. Edwards, lead by example and show us how it's done.
 
Of course, I do not expect that to happen. But in another month, John Edwards will be history anyway.

Mick O.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Extinction theory

Posted by Mick O. on Monday, July 16, 2007 3:42:26 PM

The AP recently published a story about a group who thinks if humans just went away the world would be a better place. First off, aren't these the same people who want to stop global warming so we can survive? but I digress.

The story talks about how sublime the world would be in humans were extinct, never mind the fact that nobody will be around to appreciate it!

My suggestion? To the people who like this idea, I say, "you first."

Lead by example. Make yourselves extinct. Any idea which party this guy votes for?

Mick O.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If it's a good idea, why not now?

Posted by Mick O. on Monday, July 16, 2007 3:37:37 PM

This is a continuation from the discussion yesterday about the hands free cell phone laws. If it's such a good idea then why wait until 2008? The technology is there, and why does the government care if you can afford the upgrade right away or not. They certainly don't mind raising our taxes on a whim, do they?

So what about solar energy? We live in California where we are bombarded by advertisements by PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) about how environmentally conscious they are. Sun, water, wind. That's their mantra that the little kid rants as his PG&E mom picks him up from day care... renewable energy.

Okay, so we get on the bandwagon and want to install solar panels on our roof. They're ugly, but we're promised that with the tax incentives (Thank you, folks. That's your money they're giving us for going solar!) and energy savings means we will break even in about 5 years... if I live that long! 

But here's the point I was starting to make earlier. It can not be turned on until PG&E sends out its inspectors and approves the installation so the solar system can be hooked into the grid... about a month or two from now.

That's right, I said a month. Now why would that be from a company who is using it's commercial dollars to boast about its GREEN position? I'll tell you why; follow the money.

If we go solar, suddenly we are not dependent on PG&E anymore. In fact, they have to buy back any extra power we can supply to the grid. In other words, they lose another customer.

We'll see how much this new unit actually saves us. It will probably be like the Prius, a political statement, but short on saving the environment. I will keep you posted, believe me.

Mick O.   

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do we really need so much government?

Posted by Mick O. on Sunday, July 15, 2007 2:09:31 PM
As I sit here and ponder the new California state laws against handheld phones in the cars which becomes effective in 2008 (if it's such a good idea... why not immediately???) I think about the perfect example of overlapping laws and how one contradicts another.

First of all, remember the headphone law? Drivers can not drive legally in California with headphones on because they can't hear if someone honks or other noises that might be necessary to alert the driver to potential problems. All well and good.

What about drivers who are hearing impaired (deaf)? Is it not true that they can't hear and still are allowed to drive? The American Disabilities Act guarantees this. Hmmm.

So nobody has used that argument to get the law repealed, and I am not sure how many of these tickets have been issued anyway. It's like the speed limits. If they are not going to be enforced then what's the point of having them? So we can arbitrarily observe them when a policeman is around? But I digress.

So now California passes this law that drivers are required to use hands-free devices for their phones while in a moving vehicle. This now makes the earphones okay to use. But that's only one ear you say! what if I have 2 phones I need to monitor? Is it legal or illegal?

More and more our freedoms are being taken away because of well meaning individuals. Sure, I wish that every time I see a blunder on the highway it wasn't caused by a person on the telephone. In fact, most of the times they don't even know they are being idiots. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. But does that mean we need to pass a law outlawing handheld phones in the car?

I am mister safety. I wear my seat belt and think everyone should also wear theirs. But in a free country, everyone should have the right to make that choice themselves. And do we really need a law that maybe 15% of the population totally ignores because they don't want to follow that law? And should this be a crime?

MickO.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iraqi benchmarks

Posted by Mick O. on Sunday, July 15, 2007 12:26:38 AM
What surprises me is the fact that a dysfunctional congress is the one setting benchmarks on the Iraqi government.

Our country which has been going for over 200 years has a congress that can't seem to get anything substantial done except constantly harrass the current administration. What will they do when Bush is gone??? So why they are the ones grading the Iraq government's performance is beyond me.

Please tell me how a bunch of senators and congressmen, most of whom have lived in a free society for all their lives expect a group of people who have lived under dictatorships ALL of their lives until now to be good at running a democracy immediately. Look how badly our congress has been doing it!

Mick O
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cindy Sheehan... again!

Posted by Mick O. on Saturday, July 14, 2007 9:07:16 PM
This roughly goes down in the campaigns and elections topics... but just barely. Cindy Sheehan has announced that she is going to run against Nancy Pelosi as an independent.

What difference will it make, even if she wins (which I doubt)? First of all, there are not enough votes to pull the troops out of Iraq which can only be done by defunding the war, with or without Pelosi's vote. So, trading one nut for another, means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things.

But Sheehan wants Bush and Cheny impeached for their lies to get us into the war. Never mind the fact that EVERY politician who is running (and has run for the past 2 elections) agreed with the intelligence that Saddam had weapons. It wasn't a lie. A lie is when you tell a falsehood intentionally. A mistake is when you think one thing that turns out to be different in the end. Get it, Cindy?

Mick O.

Read my blog post asking the media why Cindy Sheehan is the only Gold Star mother that has any voice on network news. http://howthemedialies.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-cindy-sheehan.html
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., what's he ever done?

Posted by Mick O. on Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:17:21 PM
Recently at my blog, http://howthemedialies.blogspot.com I wrote an opinion piece about RFK, Jr. and his remarks that anyone who denies global warming is man made is guilty of treason. Here's the article.
=========================
I heard Robert Kennedy Jr. calling those of us who don't believe in man made global warming traitors... I get it. Any time you disagree with the current administration, that's being patriotic (rants Hillary Clinton) but not when you disagree with people who are disagreeing!!!

Wow, that's so convoluted, I almost can't follow the logic! What has Kennedy done himself that wasn't subsidized by his family's fortune? He bashes big nameless corporations who have contributed more in jobs and benefits to the common good than he ever will as an environmental "toady" speaking in front of a bunch of groupies at "Live Earth".

Here's an example of a "have" speaking to a bunch of "have nots" trying to convince them that he is one of them. What a hypocrite. He has been living off his family's trust fund for years to subsidize his "day job" and he has the nerve to call us traitors?

Mr. Kennedy, take your raspy voiced ramblings and go away. And take your fat, bloated uncle Ted with you!

Mick O.
=========================
Someone with the handle RFKJr replied to my comments by posting a series of hyperlinks (below) listing the achievements of RFK Jr.

http://www.myspace.com/rfk_jr_for_the_usa

http://rfkin2008.wordpress.com/

http://draftrfkjr.blogspot.com/

To these I say, "So what?" One of my points was that his family's money is invested in these "evil corporations" he rants about. Hypocrite! And those investments are earning money for him and his family of "toadys" all outside of the inheritance tax and income tax laws so you poor people will never see a cent of it!

But my original obersvation goes like this: If he weren't Robert F. Kennedy's son, who would be listening to him? It's like Heather Mills. Would anyone know who she was if she hadn't married Paul McCartney? NO. There are a lot of people out here who are "just folks" like me who have good ideas, but because our fathers weren't someone famous, we do not have a platform. BULL! The Internet has changed all of that. 

And just because Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s dad was famous doesn't mean I have to listen or believe what he has to say! He's just "another guy" who has an opinion about the environment. It happens to be wrong, but we'll let history take care of that. He's tied his horse to the wrong wagon and time will show that he's a blow hard just like his Uncle Ted!

I'm a patriot and no RFKJr can convice me otherwise, the big government liberal "toady"!

Mick O.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Paper of plastic? How about salmonella?

Posted by Mick O. on Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:00:32 PM
Some of you may remember the old days when groceries left the grocery store in paper bags. Sometimes the contents were so heavy it required double bags.

Then the environmental movement got into the picture and protested that too many trees were being cut down every year to make paper bags and insisted we go to something else.

So grocery stores changed to plastic bags. It was a major inconvenience because the thin plastic containers did not hold their shape in the trunk and would cause them to collapse to spill their contents making the cans of soup roll around on the drive home!

After a time, people got used to the plastic and worked around their shortcomings. Some, like me, even preferred them over paper because almost all of the groceries could be carried up in one load to the kitchen by looping the handles of multiple bags in one hand.

Now that paper is pretty much out of the picture, plastic has become the villain. Probably because these bags are a product of the "evil oil companies", environmentalists are now targeting them for extinction.

Nowhere else is environmental luncay more apparent than in San Francisco where the Mayor has outlawed water in plastic bottles because it causes too much pollution. Never mind the fact that we have this expensive federal and state recycling program in place that adds taxes to all our products! No, no, now the City is poised to outlaw plastic bags in grocery stores by adding a tax for using them.

What's the solution? Go to any grocery store in the Bay Area and you will now see reuasable cloth tote bags with the store's logo printed on them that YOU CAN BUY to carry home your groceries. Can you believe it?

I am already paying for my groceries which have a "tax" built into the price of the items to cover the cost of the bagging materials, and now they want me to BUY my own tote bags? And this is going to save the planet from global warming? GIVE ME A BREAK!

And what if, in my trip to the car, the dozen eggs in my bag accidentally get broken and leak into the bottom? Can anyone say salmonella? Sure, I am smart enough to know that I need to wash it out. But what about the poor and uneducated?

For them we'll need to set up a bureau of tote bag safety to hold classes to teach people the ins and outs of carrying groceries. Don't laugh. Big government liberals will try to implement something like this. Coming soon to a grocery store near you!

Mick O.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Communism by any other name...

Posted by Mick O. on Sunday, June 10, 2007 2:31:09 PM
 
The most recent outrage is Danny Glover hanging out with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Apparently Glover has angered many people in that country because Chavez sent a ton of money the actor's way to make a movie that the locals feel could have been better spent by the people of Venezuela. Which leads me to this point.

Socialists like Glover, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Alec Baldwin and Ed Asner (to name a few... anyone notice the common denominator???) want to change the US to socialism (Asner is a Communist by his own admission). My suggestion is this; why not go to a country that already HAS communism/socialism as its policy instead of taking a country that was founded on opposite principles and change it? After all, if living under a dictatorship is so wonderful, why not move to Venezuela or Cuba or some other socialist country and leave those of us who want FREEDOM alone?

It amazes me that a country with the track record of success that the USA has with all its freedoms can constantly be assaulted by people who think they have a better idea… as if these ideas haven’t already been tried. Communism worked pretty well for the Soviet Union, didn't it? Oops, I forgot. That country collapsed under the weight of its policies! And look at Cuba... what a wonderful place it has become under the despot dictator, Fidel Castro. I hear there are a few streets that have holes where the whole car doesn't fall into! (People blame the US embargo for Cuba's plight, but every other country in the world trades with them, so it has to be something else that's wrong. Want to guess, anyone?)

I see Michael Moore has a new movie that bashes the United States (usually conservatives, not liberals like himself) that I will not want to see, just as I wasn’t able to stomach “Bowling for Columbine” or that piece of trash, “Fahrenheit 911”. But I can see from the previews that it is another arrogant socialist hit piece aimed at Bush. Fortunately, we live in a free country (sort of) and I can choose NOT to see it. I'm sure the mind numbed robots who flocked to see his other movies will enjoy this one just as much.

And what about all these politicians who are pushing a lot of socialist ideas? Since when is everyone in the United States guaranteed health insurance? And how is anything the government going to come up with going to be a good thing that will work? I mean, just the sheer economics of it guarantee failure. If we can't pay for our health costs by ourselves, how is pooling our money by way of taxes going to do any better? First we have to pay for that huge, expensive, bureaucracy we have been talking about to manage the system, then how much money will actually be left over to put toward health care? Can you say deficit spending (again)? Run a company like this, and it would go out of business in the first month.

Finally, has anyone listened to Hillary lately? Her latest rant is she's going to, and I paraphrase, "take things away from certain people and give them to others who will use them properly." First, who is going to decide who these certain people are, and who will decide what is proper use? If you think you are going to be one of them, think again!

Mick O.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will the government ever run out of BAD ideas? One from California coming soon to your neighborhood!

Posted by Mick O. on Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:22:16 PM
...And will the press ever cover them honestly?

The recent "immigration" bill is one good example of the government thinking it HAS to do something to fix a problem. Why? Nothing has been done for years and pushing though a bad bill is not the solution. In this case doing NOTHING is better than doing ANYTHING! And this bill should be described as ANYTHING. After all, they don't like any of Bush's ideas except this one??? Come on!

But let's move on. Currrently in California, there is a push to pass legislation that would impose a $2500 tax on anyone buying certain vehicles like trucks and SUVs then turn around and give the $2500 as a rebate to people who choose fuel efficient hybrids...

Now I am all for people driving whatever they want to drive, though I would like to see one of these little cars negotiate some of the snow storms or off road terrain of the Sierras as well as an SUV. However, I am NOT for our legislators (whom we elect) making a law like this, virtually punishing people for the car choices they make in order to strong arm them into choosing something smaller... all in the name of saving the planet... while we haven't even proven that it needs our help!

In effect, they are reaching into the pocket of people whose choices they don't approve and give it to someone who makes the choices they want. (This does not just happen with automobiles, by the way!) Taxation has been used forever to influence people's decisions for better or worse.

But in this issue, set aside the global warming scenario for a moment, and take a look a the proposal on its merits. For starters, if these vehicles were such a good idea, wouldn't they be flying off the shelves? Like wide screen plasma televisions, they would be selling like hotcakes AND the prices would be coming down because every car manufacturers would be getting into the hybrid vehicle arena. However, just the opposite is true. Honda just announced the discontinuation of Accord Hybrid due to "lack of interest".

The next thought is this... who in their right mind thinks 100% of this money that goes to the government in taxes will then make it back out to reward those who buy the energy efficient cars? When has the government EVER returned 100% of the money it collects? Well, in the case of social security, you might have an argument.

But take the Lottery, for example. The original proposal was passed because the money was supposed go to the schools. As it turns out, more of the money from the lottery has gone to pay the employees who run and administer the lottery than has ever gone to benefit the schools. Though the schools are constantly complaining that they don't get enough money, nobody has suggested changing the lottery system. Why? Because these workers became state union employees who vote Democrat, for the most part. And Democrats run California... into the ground!

But I digress. Why should we believe this big car tax will be any different? What I envision is a new government bureaucracy will be created (or at the very least, a new department) to collect, account for and redistribute these new found taxes. Then the program will start running a deficit because of the overtime, holiday pay, vacations, health benefits, pension, etc. of the employees and suddenly they will need to be subsidized. But the goal has been achieved... to create another bunch of governement reliant people who will vote for the hands that feed them!!!

Mick O.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How the media uses "softening" to push its propaganda

Posted by Mick O. on Sunday, June 03, 2007 2:34:22 PM
 
When I refer to "softening" it has nothing to do with stool samples, though the media reports have become a bunch of crap... What is does have to do is an organized effort of theirs to soften the words it uses to push an agenda. Examples are these:
 
"Terrorists" became "insurgents" in the Iraq war.
"Minimum wage" became "living wage".
"Illegal aliens" became "undocumented workers".
 
There are many other examples, but these are a couple that come to mind from recent news events. Now why would someone do this? In my elementary school civics class, we talked about propaganda and how governments use it to sway public opinion, hopefully in such a way that nobody notices the subtle influence.
 
One of the early examples from my childhood was that "Everyone is doing it." It was quickly pointed out that, indeed, not EVERYONE was doing it. But it's an easy cop on a one way broadcast or printed article to say that "everyone is against the war in Iraq," when there is no way to challenge that statement except a letter to the editor which would be published long after the original article were forgotten.
 
My point is this; that every day our language is being changed by people with an agenda. Take the word "dialog". How often in the past 6 months have you heard the new un-word "dialoging"? We talk, we don't dialog. But suddenly there is a need to dialog with our enemies. We need to begin a dialog  with Hugo Chavez so we can understand him better. As Doctor Evil would say, "Right....."
 
People that come into our country illegally are illegal. Any wage that is set as the lowest common denominator by the government is the minimum. And terrorists in Iraq are coming from Iran and are NOT insurgents! Get it?
 
Mick O.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Does anyone else find Hillary's attack on rich people a little ironic?

Posted by Mick O. on Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:27:39 AM
After all, she is one of them. So is John Kerry... and John Edwards... and Ted Kennedy... and Jay Rockefeller. How can people believe these folks when they talk about raising taxes on the rich? Does anyone in their right mind really think they have not protected their assets and will not be coming after people's money? After all, where is the line between rich and upper middle class? Nobody seems to define that. It's just another label like "conservative" or "liberal" or "black" or "white" as if everyone is each of these groups agrees on every single issue.

Townhall.com reports this, "During a major campaign address delivered in Manchester New Hampshire, Mrs. Clinton explained her intent to eliminate the so-called 'tax cuts for the wealthy,' and introduced new ways for government to spend American’s money." Is this American? It certainly has become so with Democrat policies, but is not what the country was intended to be.

My opinion is that Mrs. Clinton will talk to the left of left on issues before the primary to get herself annointed "queen bee" and then move center as the 2008 election draws near. Her willing accomplices in the media will totally ignore her previous statements when she contradict her earlier positions when she does so.

Read Austin Hill's piece at Townhall.com here. It will open your eyes.

Mick O.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Compact Flourescent Light Bulbs

Posted by Mick O. on Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:24:12 PM
Remember the old mercury thermometers that were outlawed because they contained such a dangerous substance?

Now congress is considering a law to ban the standard light bulbs and force us to use compact fourescent light bulbs whose main ingredient is... you guessed it, mercury. In fact, they are so hazardous that if broken, the suggestion is to call a HAZMAT team to clean it up!

Do we really need congress to pass a law like this? What's the reason? Help stop mand-made global warming and save the planet one light bulb at a time! Great. The planet won't heat up 1/2 a degree, but we can all die of mercury poisoning! GREAT PLAN!

Where is the media on this one???? Absent as usual!

Mick O.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Using POLLS to create news!

Posted by Mick O. on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 5:09:37 PM
Has anyone noticed how the news media is using polls to create news? It's becoming more and more prominent as a way to create news AND to influence public opinion.

The first lie I saw the other day on a morning show was this; because of gas prices, 50% of people have cancelled their plans for summer vacation. Who did they poll and why would anyone cancel summer trips they are planning to take in July and August in May? IT'S A LIE. What would be the purpose? I am not sure, but could it be a swipe at the gas companies? Republicans? President Bush? I'm sure they could not have polled enough people to be able to come to that conclusion.

If it's a swipe at high gas prices, then who is to blame? Media reports that Democrats say it's because of the failed policy of the current administration. How? Democrats' pals, the environmentalists won't let us drill anywhere or build new refineries. Plus liberal policies have added a tax burden of over 50 cents a gallon in most states. Then we have all the gasoline blends the refineries need to produce to meet the emmission standards in each state which drives up costs.

So how does this becomes Bush's fault? Because he didn't repeal all the laws the Democrats have passed over the years (as if he could)? I blame extreme environmentalists for the high gas prices and so should you. Who are their pals? Republicans or Democrats? I'd bet they vote Democrat more than they vote Republican. But losers fix the blame, winners fix what caused the problems. So what's the solution? REPEAL THE GAS TAX, STANDARDIZE THE GASOLINE BLENDS, OPEN ANWR TO DRILLING and BUILD SOME NEW REFINERIES (lift the restrictions).

Then there's the endless polls about the war... who are the people they are polling and what is their expertise on running a war? And who cares? I want the US to win peace in the middle east. Don't you? I'll do more on this later, I'm sure. But I need to pack for a trip. NO, we haven't cancelled our plans because of high gas prices!!!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Cindy Sheehan?

Posted by Mick O. on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 5:04:54 PM
And you think the media isn't biased? Since the beginning of the Iraq war, almost 3500 soldiers have died serving our country. So why is Cindy Sheehan the only one who makes the news? Since her son, Casey, was killed in Iraq, she became a rabid anti-war activist.

My question would be why is she the only Gold-star mother the media turns to for a news story? Certainly there are other well spoken mothers who have opposing views to this liberal airhead. So why don't we hear from them? Is it because they don't pal around with Venezuelan dictators?

The answer is, it doesn't fit the media's anti-Bush, anti-war message. Now that she has "checked out" let's see how long it takes for her to show up again.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910Next »