The Dems want to imitate the business plan of the Ministry Of Plenty.
Archive for January, 2009
In San Francisco, of course – although apparently in this case they’re behind the Chicago.
It turns out that all of these years, for every acre of rainforest cut down, there’s about 50 acres growing.
Just like in New England: we have far more trees now than in the 1800s.
Congratulations to all of the Iraqis, and to the military who made this possible with the surge and all their hard work over the years, and to President bush, for freeing the Iraqis in the first place, and having the will to see things through.
And suck it, libs, Dems, Obama, and the media: you wanted Iraq (and America) to fail, almost every step of the way. It hasn’t, and thanks to this internet thing, your defeatism is going to be remembered for all of time.
More warm water ports. Abkhazia and Russia just announced that Russia would establish air and naval bases in the region.
Will Obama grow a spine?
We’ve seen repeatedly that the Democrats can’t learn economically from history. Here’s the latest failures in looking at history for foreign policy.
To those who point out that Bush didn’t fare much better with the Palestinians, I would point out that at least he got them to try and elect a government, before Arafat pulled a coup against his own people.
It would result in harm to the public’s interest in a speedy trial.
Jules Crittendon also has the link.
CatholicVote has an awesome video (that NBC refuses to air) reminding mothers contemplating abortion that there’s no limit to what their child can do, even if their own circumstances aren’t so good:
Of course, maybe being a politician isn’t something one should be so proud of…
Especially the Gimp. You have the most unfriendly, unintuitive interface in the history of computing. The number of hours I have wasted attempting to do trivial tasks is crazy.
Not a single member of the House GOP voted for the boondoggle. Wonderful! Of course, it still passed anyways, and Pelosi and Obama were still celebrating, Obama with cocktails and wagyu steak.
When you look at the deficit the next few years, when the bills come due, remember this moment.
Why should he conserve when he’s got the position he wants, and it’s the taxpayer’s dime?
For New Hampshire. He’s running Mass. so badly into the ground that he’s been quite the boon for our northerly neighbor.
Check it out. Sure, you’re limited to staying above the water, but it still seems like a ton of fun.
A bill is going out trying to pass the “Rangel Rule”: All U.S. taxpayers enjoy the same immunities as Rangel and Geithner have been enjoying. Like I said, the Democrats are leading by example in helping people survive the harsh economic climate.
I know I said I was tired of talking about the “stimulus”, but here’s just one more article that does a good job of summarizing much of what is wrong about it.
I sure do love the amount of government debt I’m being opted into.
Moe Lane is furious because Obama (and his staff) fired the coordinator of PEPFAR for cheap political points, a move that will definitely affect how well the program works, and it is a program that has been perhaps the success story during the Bush administration, saving the lives of countless people with Aids. In other words, Democrats are willing to let people die as long as they get to spite those they have any political disagreements with. This is nothing new though: All throughout the Iraq war a large number of leading Democrats liberals (forgot to include the NY Times), Obama included, stated repeatedly that they thought we should leave Iraq, even despite their acknowledgement that the Iraqis would be slaughtered genocidally by terrorists. The only reason Democrats had to take such a position (given our fantastically low troop casualty rates the entire Iraq war) was the political gain they would reap from a defeated America (and thus a defeated Republican party).
I am not one to demonize my political opponents, I don’t go around calling everyone I disagree with Nazis, fascists (except when I’m using the term in a strictly historical sense, as defined by Jonah Goldberg), or any other attacking term. I also don’t religiously view those I disagree with as evil, as Republicans are generally viewed here in my state of Massachusetts. But whenever I see politicians make a decision that will directly cost real human lives (as opposed to policies that might or might not be successful, such as many crimefighting policies) merely for a little political gain, that is my definition of an evil act, almost as evil as if the politician was killing those people themselves.
