I gotta start watching better TV channels.
Please explain to me why if one believed in "god" and further believed that this "almighty being" had a "match for you"why would this "god" need christianmingle.com advertising on cable channels for him/her/it.
Seriously, somebody please explain.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Friday, December 21, 2012
I sit here just days away from the end of the year, a time of the year full of celebrations and holidays and I cannot believe how sad and disgusted I am with today's NRA press conference and last night's radical right obstruction of government.
These 2 events are so clearly tied together. How have we come to the point in our society that a small fringe element can control and harm all of us. How can a tiny section of Washington be so powerful and rabid that their renegade behavior is in opposition to even their own party. And then, in both cases the victim is blamed. The Republican party now tries to claim that it will be the White House's fault if no agreement is reached and the NRA claims that had there been MORE guns the hands of the public, the many recent mass shootings would not have occurred.
Does any rational person believe that the solution to violent gun crime is to arm principals and teachers? Does anyone out there really think that we should put an armed guard in every school. Should every theater usher have a gun? How about every fast food cashier, there have been mass shootings in movie theaters and fast food joints.
Does anyone out there think that with our current deficit, raising taxes on those earning more than $1 million dollars a year is a bad thing? First $250,000 would not fly, then $400,000. Now the Republican party feels the need to protect those taking home more than an even cool million per year. Their argument that greater tax of these high earners will harm the economy is nonsense. Every single non-partisan unbiased look at the deficit agrees that a blend of higher taxes and lower spending is the only solution.
How long will Americans continue to tolerate such behaviors in the public or private sectors?
not enough said
These 2 events are so clearly tied together. How have we come to the point in our society that a small fringe element can control and harm all of us. How can a tiny section of Washington be so powerful and rabid that their renegade behavior is in opposition to even their own party. And then, in both cases the victim is blamed. The Republican party now tries to claim that it will be the White House's fault if no agreement is reached and the NRA claims that had there been MORE guns the hands of the public, the many recent mass shootings would not have occurred.
Does any rational person believe that the solution to violent gun crime is to arm principals and teachers? Does anyone out there really think that we should put an armed guard in every school. Should every theater usher have a gun? How about every fast food cashier, there have been mass shootings in movie theaters and fast food joints.
Does anyone out there think that with our current deficit, raising taxes on those earning more than $1 million dollars a year is a bad thing? First $250,000 would not fly, then $400,000. Now the Republican party feels the need to protect those taking home more than an even cool million per year. Their argument that greater tax of these high earners will harm the economy is nonsense. Every single non-partisan unbiased look at the deficit agrees that a blend of higher taxes and lower spending is the only solution.
How long will Americans continue to tolerate such behaviors in the public or private sectors?
not enough said
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Please elect me President of the NRA.
I just joined the NRA. Seriously, I did. For $35 a year, I can receive all of their mail, read all their writings and most importantly vote in their (or should I say my) association's elections.
Rather than trying to fight with the NRA and change their positions from the outside, maybe a couple million Americans with common sense should join and at this year's annual meeting nominate our own slate and elect a board that will respond to the desires and interests of the new NRA majority. I'll be happy to be NRA President if that will help move the country towards sanity.
not enough said
I just joined the NRA. Seriously, I did. For $35 a year, I can receive all of their mail, read all their writings and most importantly vote in their (or should I say my) association's elections.
Rather than trying to fight with the NRA and change their positions from the outside, maybe a couple million Americans with common sense should join and at this year's annual meeting nominate our own slate and elect a board that will respond to the desires and interests of the new NRA majority. I'll be happy to be NRA President if that will help move the country towards sanity.
not enough said
Friday, December 14, 2012
After last months elections I thought enough had been said and that I could (at least for a while) retire what James would call my "rants". But today's shooting in CT reminds me that we cannot sit back and let the radical elements of society go unchecked and unchallenged.
There is no rational excuse to hide behind the 2nd Amendment for the un-infringed right to own military style semi-automatic pistols with large volume ammo clips.
But for the sake of argument, why not stop fighting the Constitutionality of gun control under the 2nd Amendment and work to change the Constitution. Why not just seek an amendment allowing for reasonable gun control. What rational and reasonable person would vote against such an amendment? Let the NRA and the radical right show their true colors. Put it to the people, isn't this what the radical right would claim they want? Yep, the country will split on this issue just like on so many others, but one has to hope that enough Americans are sick and tired of un-infringed gun ownership and will vote to see that events like today's shooting are stopped.
not enough said
There is no rational excuse to hide behind the 2nd Amendment for the un-infringed right to own military style semi-automatic pistols with large volume ammo clips.
But for the sake of argument, why not stop fighting the Constitutionality of gun control under the 2nd Amendment and work to change the Constitution. Why not just seek an amendment allowing for reasonable gun control. What rational and reasonable person would vote against such an amendment? Let the NRA and the radical right show their true colors. Put it to the people, isn't this what the radical right would claim they want? Yep, the country will split on this issue just like on so many others, but one has to hope that enough Americans are sick and tired of un-infringed gun ownership and will vote to see that events like today's shooting are stopped.
not enough said
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Today Mitt Romney described Obamacare as government intervention between a patient and their doctor. Now we have all fallen through the rabbit hole. Wouldn't the passage of anti-choice laws be intervention between a patient and a doctor and wouldn't Obamacare be giving all Americans a chance to actually have a patient/doctor relationship.
Romney must also have fallen through the rabbit hole. He used to be rabidly pro-choice (well, anyway he was when he wanted to get elected governor of a liberal state) and he was the creator of Romneycare in the same liberal state (again, only when in a liberal state and willing to acknowledge that Romney/Obamacare was better for all citizens AND cost effective.)
nuf said
Romney must also have fallen through the rabbit hole. He used to be rabidly pro-choice (well, anyway he was when he wanted to get elected governor of a liberal state) and he was the creator of Romneycare in the same liberal state (again, only when in a liberal state and willing to acknowledge that Romney/Obamacare was better for all citizens AND cost effective.)
nuf said
Friday, September 21, 2012
Yesterday, Linda McMahon said that she and her husband did not know who the creditors from her 1976 bankruptcy were and "could not find the documents". After a New London paper found the documents, she and her husband are "reaching out" to their creditors.
Linda, suddenly feels it is "the right thing to do" to pay her creditors in full, spending approximately $1 million dollars. Remember that Linda spent $55 MILLION of her own money in her last Senatorial run and will spend well over $10 MILLION in this run.
The $1 million in restitution is:
Less than 2% of her campaign expenses
Less than 1/4% of her net worth
Oh,and less than 15% of the $7 million she might save per year in the tax reductions she proposes if elected.
My response to Linda "liar liar pants on fire", you are not doing the right thing because it is right, you are doing it because it is expedient and you got busted.
nuf said
Linda, suddenly feels it is "the right thing to do" to pay her creditors in full, spending approximately $1 million dollars. Remember that Linda spent $55 MILLION of her own money in her last Senatorial run and will spend well over $10 MILLION in this run.
The $1 million in restitution is:
Less than 2% of her campaign expenses
Less than 1/4% of her net worth
Oh,and less than 15% of the $7 million she might save per year in the tax reductions she proposes if elected.
My response to Linda "liar liar pants on fire", you are not doing the right thing because it is right, you are doing it because it is expedient and you got busted.
nuf said
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)