Mr. O,
Jan. 5, 2009 - You continue to attack those who speculate on oil and at the same time you sell speculation on gold! Jan. 5, 2009 "Because of their quasi-government status there is a market perception that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) mortgage-backed securities and debt carry and explicit Federal guarantee against default. Hence, the GSEs expose the federal taxpayer to an ever-increasing potential contingent liability that could ultimately cost tens of billions to rectify." Vern McKinley - Cato Institute - 1997 You continue to babble about how nobody knew about the tax liability when you should be saying nobody was listening. Hope you fired your financial advisors.
Dec. 12, 2008 You continue to attack those who speculate on oil and at the same time you sell speculation on gold!
Oct. 14, 2008 You said liberals were supposed to be opened minded. You are right. It is a core value and principle. Then you stated the people of Marin County are very closed minded. The question of the last 50-60 years. Why do media types like yourself keep calling closed minded, intolerant individuals liberals? We all deserve an answer!
Sept. 29, 2008You know; That the small number of Libertarians in public office, appointed and elected, are doing a better job of, use and protection, of public tax monies than Republicans or Democrats. But, you and the rest of the media never talk about it. That is a failing on both your parts as to informing the public. That makes you all political hacks at some level. The words that comes to mind is 'dereliction of duty.'
Sept. 23, 2008 You do a good job of selling gold as in investment. As you know the more you sell, the more the price will rise. It does not mean there is a shortage of gold, just a more desire to own the commodity caused by your efforts. However when it comes to oil you do not see that you do the same thing..just a different commodity.
Sept. 11, 2008 You keep saying Senator Obama is very very smart. Brilliant even. Yet, he has no clue his lipstick on a pig remark, in a prepared speech, would not be a reference to Governor Palin.His audience laughed and whenced all at the same time, with the facial expressions to match. The audience knew immediately what, and who he was referring to. And, it was not Senator McCain.In his most recent statement he said Governor Palin would have been the lipstick and Republican policy would be the pig. Basically, that is just another way of saying the same thing. But according to you no sane person could ever make that connection. Well, I guess most of us who are paying attention, are insane just like his audience.
August 6 Your complaining about e-mails accusing you of being a socialist. Pathetic, since you and Hannity are a main source of the ignorance. The idea that liberals, socialist and authoritarians are basically the same animal.The liberal concept would be you help those you volunteer/choose to help. Pretty much what you proposed the oil companies do regarding heating oil. However you have brainwashed citizens that this liberal concept is an example of socialism.And, you and your guest think you have to explain to voters what it means to be a liberal. You think we don't know what it means to be a liberal.No sir; it is you and your guests that do not know what it means to be a liberal..not us. Again, pathetic that you complain, when the ignorance that you preach, is thrown back in your face in the form of an e-mail accusing you of being a socialist. (see Mar.13)
April 28 Regarding the good Senator Obama you might consider an old quote."Everyman is like the company he is wont to keep". Euripides - 500 B.C.Some things do not change...No matter how hard you try Mr. O, the good Senator is what he is and you can not change it. (see April 17th...still no answer)
April 21"The minorities get preferential treatment and I think they should". It sounds like the same old racism, Jim Crow Laws, designed to reward or punish based on race, culture or status. Makes you sound like a conservative Democrat and the "psycho babble" taught in Public Schools.April 17You seem to be smitten by Osama Bama (if it's good enough for Uncle Teddy it is good enough for me) so I have a question for the the good Senator from the great State of Illinois....kinda like being from the great State of Louisiana. I has been reported that Senator Obama is a devotee of Nietzsche and Nihilism...true or false? If true it would explain his lack of inability to take a moral stand regarding any and all issues. If not true, you should squash the claim.Mar. 13 Pure racism is "rewards or punishment" based on race. You are right. liberals are not racist. Liberals traded slavery for individual liberty.*However, Democrats have always, and still do, use racism as a political club. Again, by definition and action, Democrats are not liberals. And you will say, " that's interesting." (see Oct. 12).*Ludwig von MisesJan. 22, 2008 When you refuse to discuss Ron Paul because he is not electable...you miss the point. If you were "looking out for us" you would discuss the ideas he brings to the political arena...that is his importance.
Nov. 7 So you consider yourself a member of the "Peoples Party".....this is very interesting. The populist is usually another name for socialist....or the "King" by another name??? And one caller called you on your version of what it means to be a honest law abiding person....And once again you explained that you would break the law, therefore is OK for illegal aliens to break the law!...Way to GO Mr. "O". Oct. 31She is a liberal......Bill Orielly - KABC 790 She is a socialist...John Ziegler KFI 640 Regarding Senator Clinton
Oct. 30 Today you seem to use the word socialist, libertine, liberal, marxist, secular progressive, authortarian, and affirmative action, as if they were all interchangeable...When I do research I can not find anything that supports your view......WHY NOT?
Oct. 24 You are on the right track when you said that only about twenty (20) percent of the people were liberals..... Currently, I would estimate it is much lower at about ten (10) to twelve (12) percent and at any given time in history nor more than thirty (30) percent.....which holds true for all our short history and thousands of years before. What you don't understand is in that group many liberals call themselves libertarians, classic liberals ect., ect. because of the undeserved beating they get from all the radio heads. Oct. 15 You slander and demean me everyday....for you to even infer that mocking the Catholic church has anything to do with liberalism or what it means to be a liberal, without any basis in fact or support, is despicable. Oct. 12The Democrats are on the left.......The Klan (KKK) is on the right.....according to you.Let me see....I'm thinking....I'm thinking......HMMMMMM,............. still thinking..........OH YEAH, the Democrats were the Klan (KKK) JIm Crow Laws ect., that controlled politics in several states in Old North East and the Old South.
Oct. 11, 2007 You are automatically a U.S. citizen if you if you are born here.....according to you. Well....not according to the constitution.....nor does US vs. Wong support your position. As you say....... What is your frame of reference? I'm convinced ....you do make it up as you go along...It is a good thing you don't write your books the same way you are on air.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
The SOCIALIST TRAIN
and The Egineers -
It’s a House divided — not so much, because both Democrats and Republicans support the financial policies that has brought us to where we are. Our financial problems are caused by the injection of “socialist engineering concepts” into the business model (and education model).
Herbert Hoover These socialist concepts began with the Hoover and FDR administration and have grown, with increased power and failure under each administration.
The core problem is the federal government acting as the “Great White Father” using socialist engineering concepts applied to a free market. This must be addressed and stopped. They are not only unconstitutional — they have failed every time they have been applied or used.Any current bailout, rescue package or payout without a ban on future government sponsored enterprises, GSE's Fannie/Freddie adventures is not acceptable. Without such a ban, we are continuing the same policy no matter how much the Democrats and Republicans claim this will never happen again. If we have the programs and support the policy, it will happen again and again and again.Senator Obama or Senator McCain will keep stoking the fires of the socialist train,.. we must take their shovels away from them — permanently!
Published Nov. 4, 2008 - LA Times/DP
donkrotee wrote on Nov 4, 2008
" This writing is so wrong it is a little surprising the Pilot printed it. Deregulation, not socialism, and bipartisan greed are the culprits for crisis. Banking wanted to deregulate itself since 1933. Financial institutions got their big start when Phill Gramm (R) collected more than $1.5 million in lobbying cash (he needed for his senate re-election) to push through (narrow margin) relief from a banking/finance regs of the Glass-Steagall Act, one of the pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Final collapse was Paulson convincing Cox/ and SEC to exempt investment banks from maintaining reserves to cover losses. "
timothy wrote on Nov. 29
This is good!
It’s a House divided — not so much, because both Democrats and Republicans support the financial policies that has brought us to where we are. Our financial problems are caused by the injection of “socialist engineering concepts” into the business model (and education model).
Herbert Hoover These socialist concepts began with the Hoover and FDR administration and have grown, with increased power and failure under each administration.
The core problem is the federal government acting as the “Great White Father” using socialist engineering concepts applied to a free market. This must be addressed and stopped. They are not only unconstitutional — they have failed every time they have been applied or used.Any current bailout, rescue package or payout without a ban on future government sponsored enterprises, GSE's Fannie/Freddie adventures is not acceptable. Without such a ban, we are continuing the same policy no matter how much the Democrats and Republicans claim this will never happen again. If we have the programs and support the policy, it will happen again and again and again.Senator Obama or Senator McCain will keep stoking the fires of the socialist train,.. we must take their shovels away from them — permanently!
Published Nov. 4, 2008 - LA Times/DP
donkrotee wrote on Nov 4, 2008
" This writing is so wrong it is a little surprising the Pilot printed it. Deregulation, not socialism, and bipartisan greed are the culprits for crisis. Banking wanted to deregulate itself since 1933. Financial institutions got their big start when Phill Gramm (R) collected more than $1.5 million in lobbying cash (he needed for his senate re-election) to push through (narrow margin) relief from a banking/finance regs of the Glass-Steagall Act, one of the pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Final collapse was Paulson convincing Cox/ and SEC to exempt investment banks from maintaining reserves to cover losses. "
timothy wrote on Nov. 29
This is good!
Saturday, October 11, 2008
CLINTON PALIN
CLINTON PALIN and the SISTERHOOD of the BELL
The words “disapproval of the McCain-Palin ticket” attributed to young women and the photo worded “Women for Obama” struck a chord with my inner self that I did not know I had (“Praised, panned in Costa Mesa,” Oct. 5).I have heard since I was a young boy that there was a sisterhood among all women. What women experienced in life was very different than the good old boys’ world experience. Most women had insight into the pain and glory, that bound them together based on life experience. Any time one of the sisters was unfairly treated or physically harmed it was an attack against the sisterhood as a whole.If the theory is true, it has met it’s greatest test. What is that test? The crucifixion of Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin.No, not questions of policy or experience, which I would expect. An all-out personal attack regarding her lifestyle, beliefs, husband and her children. Not unlike what happened to Sen. Hillary Clinton as she campaigned for the Democrat Party nomination for president.Both Palin and Clinton have been the target of demeaning slurs and personal questions of all types. Saying she is only qualified to run the PTA or that her daughter proves she is an unfit mother is a slur against all women. Because Palin and Clinton both have more experience than Sen. Barack Obama, I can only conclude that the crucifixion of each has more to do with their being successful moms and successful in their chosen fields.We know the good old boy network does exist, and Palin and Clinton do not belong. Each in their own way, remind me a little of Margaret Thatcher. Is that so bad? The sisterhood did rise up somewhat to the personal attacks against Clinton from many sides of the political arena.The great test: Will any of the sisters rise to the occasion and object to the crucifixion of Palin regardless of personal philosophy, beliefs, faith or culture?Then, possibly the message be all that you can be is intended for all women.My best guess, and just a guess, the answer is no. However, if there were a true sisterhood they should realize that if they do well in life the good old boys and the media will crucify them!Things could change.
el tigre wrote on Oct 10, 2008
" Elllie,Madam Speaker is a real woman. I would love her to be our next president. We need a strong and knowledgeable woman in the White House. Paulin is neither Hillary nor Nancy. "
elllie abernathy wrote on Oct 10, 2008
" She is running for VP not President! when was the last time a VP took over? 1944+/- the likelyhood she would take office is small--I know anything can happen, but the reality is she most likely will NOT take office. I would be more scared that both would be gone and "Madam Speaker" would be president- YIKES!! she is way more scarry then Palin! "
Eliza wrote on Oct 10, 2008
Sarah Palin does not represent 'tolerance and equality.' Nor does she have much in common with Hillary Clinton besides their common gender. You continue to make the mistake of rounding up all women into your Norman Rockwell-designed cage.And your continued sentimentality over a lost 'sisterhood' that never existed simply proves that you'd rather pine over the imaginary feminine ideal in your mind than hear and respect the women speaking to you on this very web page. "
El Tigre wrote on Oct 10, 2008
" Sorry, there's nothing similar between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin other than the two are women. Hillary is clearly the most polished and smart. I'm sure Hillary reads magazines like Foreign Affairs, Int. Affairs, The Economist, and some academic magazines to get knowledge on the world. Palin didn't know any of them when asked by newswoman Couric. If someone seeking a top public office doesn't know the "Bush Doctrine", then he/she shouldn't be elected. After all, we suffer today due to the so-called "Bush Doctrine". Palin is no Hillary. "
Concerned_Citizen wrote on Oct 10, 2008
" The scariest part about Palin is that she would only be ONE heartbeat away from being our president. Conservative column writers are being honest that she is clearly NOT QUALIFIED to be in that position. It has nothing to do with gender. She is more of a detriment to the McCain ticket than a positive as she only appeals to the ultra right base, which she alread had going in. "
gericault wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" There is no comparison between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.This is like comparing John McCain with Ronald Reagan because they are both old.John McCain is NO Ronald Reagan!What media? Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren. Nice handholding. Did Katie Couric give Sarah too much rope? Those hard questions like"What do you read , and Name a supreme court ruling"?You Republicans should have not been so against Romney because he was a Mormon.He might have helped you a little with the economic meltdown. Not much, but better than Palin.McCain went for the rabid base and lost the election. "
billtheswede wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" Sounds like Eliza is one of those zombies from "Night of the Living Dead" walking around this nation without common sense. Most zombies cannot count to 100. "
Eliza wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" Gosh, thanks, Billtheswede! I always thought that preserving the planet we inhabit and defending the bodily autonomy of half its citizens was pretty important, but thank goodness you're here to school me (and, I assume, the rest of the sisterhood)!Just so we're clear, Palin and I disagree on nearly every crucial issue. However, since I don't believe her views on the war, the nation's foreign policy, the economy, or the deficit are much more than talking points rehearsed in the past month, I opted not to address them in my 100-word comment. "
billtheswede wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" In response to Eliza's comment regarding Palin anybody who considers a candidate's stance of being anti-choice and anti-environment as the most important issues facing the USA today is a very short-sighted individual. "
Mike O'Reilly wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" Crucified? Oh, stop. Palin has been ridiculed in the public prints not because she's a woman, but because she's so spectacularly, preposterously unfit for higher office. McCain pulled her out of bag during the convention, and since then she's done nothing but smirk, wink, and utter consummate gibberish. The woman is an utter bonehead, pushed in front of McCain to soak up the grapeshot fired at his inept campaign.
SoCalboomer wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" Just as you can get misunderstood when you try to speak to a native, when you are learning a new language, there are a lot of complexities in the sisterhood. First of all, women have brains and access to all kinds of thought and decision making processes that have little or nothing to do with gender. Secondly, women have only been able to vote since 1921, and not always had female candidates to choose from, so women have more expertise in evaluating candidates as a whole person, not just on gender alone. Also we're choosing a president not a VP. "
stepping_up wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" Yes, when a sister is unfairly treated or harmed, it is an attack on all of us. Sarah Palin unfairly treated the women of Wasala when she decided to save the city some money by billing rape victims for the kits used in the investigation. So yes, as a sister, I very rightfully question her decency as a woman and a human being. I'm outraged that you have the audacity to tell me that I should be defending this woman. She deserves to be held accountable for her personal beliefs when she issues legislation that harms women. "
Gina wrote on Oct 9, 2008
Your comment alone is sexist. You offend me by assuming I should not think for myself, only my gender and suggesting that women who do 'crucify' Palin are petty and jealous? Palin in no way represents ANYTHING in my belief system. Her experience thus far has been a scripted mess and the most recent personal attacks on Obama fill her 'speeches' with venom and fear mongering- again, Mrs. Jane Six Pack does NOT speak for me with her homophobic, anti-choice, book banning, $1.2 million dollar voice. AND Republicans DO NOT own the American flag- we all do! "
proud mom wrote on Oct 8, 2008
" I am a Christian mother of five and I don't support Sarah Palin because she is not who she says she is. First, she says she's a mother. Real mothers put their children FIRST. Second, she says she's a Christian. The Christian church opposes pre-marital sex, and Ms. Palin was pregnant before marriage, and so was her teenage daughter. Third, Ms. Palin says she's an American. Americans speak English, not Alaskan Ebonics. There's a reason why a pronunciation is included in American dictionaries. Sarah Palin is not representative of motherhood, Christianity, or America! "
Eliza wrote on Oct 8, 2008
" By the way---sexism should offend all PEOPLE, not just all WOMEN. :) "
eliza wrote on Oct 8, 2008
You're right: No woman should have to withstand attacks because of her gender. Feminists like myself have spoken vociferously against the rife sexism directed at both Palin and Clinton.But you, too, engage in sexism when youthrow all women into the "sisterhood" pile---as if we're interchangeable and indistinguishable, one big giggly sorority with a common charter. The notion that we should shelve our principles in order to elect a shockingly unqualified candidate just because she's female is the biggest insult of all.The anti-choice, anti-environment, homophobic Palin does not speak for me. Neither should you.
jamisings wrote on Oct 8, 2008 " Of course it should offend all women. It should offend anyone of any gender with half a brain. The problem is most of the attacks are being done by hypocritical women (and a few men) who can't see that Palin is the better choice for VP then Biden. Who are afraid because the Republicans were brave enough to do what the Democrats could not do. "
Balboa Res wrote on Oct 8, 2008
" It is more offensive to think that women should stick up for a woman who doesn't believe in women's rights. "
Published LA Times Daily Pilot Freedom Newspapers OC Register
The words “disapproval of the McCain-Palin ticket” attributed to young women and the photo worded “Women for Obama” struck a chord with my inner self that I did not know I had (“Praised, panned in Costa Mesa,” Oct. 5).I have heard since I was a young boy that there was a sisterhood among all women. What women experienced in life was very different than the good old boys’ world experience. Most women had insight into the pain and glory, that bound them together based on life experience. Any time one of the sisters was unfairly treated or physically harmed it was an attack against the sisterhood as a whole.If the theory is true, it has met it’s greatest test. What is that test? The crucifixion of Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin.No, not questions of policy or experience, which I would expect. An all-out personal attack regarding her lifestyle, beliefs, husband and her children. Not unlike what happened to Sen. Hillary Clinton as she campaigned for the Democrat Party nomination for president.Both Palin and Clinton have been the target of demeaning slurs and personal questions of all types. Saying she is only qualified to run the PTA or that her daughter proves she is an unfit mother is a slur against all women. Because Palin and Clinton both have more experience than Sen. Barack Obama, I can only conclude that the crucifixion of each has more to do with their being successful moms and successful in their chosen fields.We know the good old boy network does exist, and Palin and Clinton do not belong. Each in their own way, remind me a little of Margaret Thatcher. Is that so bad? The sisterhood did rise up somewhat to the personal attacks against Clinton from many sides of the political arena.The great test: Will any of the sisters rise to the occasion and object to the crucifixion of Palin regardless of personal philosophy, beliefs, faith or culture?Then, possibly the message be all that you can be is intended for all women.My best guess, and just a guess, the answer is no. However, if there were a true sisterhood they should realize that if they do well in life the good old boys and the media will crucify them!Things could change.
el tigre wrote on Oct 10, 2008
" Elllie,Madam Speaker is a real woman. I would love her to be our next president. We need a strong and knowledgeable woman in the White House. Paulin is neither Hillary nor Nancy. "
elllie abernathy wrote on Oct 10, 2008
" She is running for VP not President! when was the last time a VP took over? 1944+/- the likelyhood she would take office is small--I know anything can happen, but the reality is she most likely will NOT take office. I would be more scared that both would be gone and "Madam Speaker" would be president- YIKES!! she is way more scarry then Palin! "
Eliza wrote on Oct 10, 2008
Sarah Palin does not represent 'tolerance and equality.' Nor does she have much in common with Hillary Clinton besides their common gender. You continue to make the mistake of rounding up all women into your Norman Rockwell-designed cage.And your continued sentimentality over a lost 'sisterhood' that never existed simply proves that you'd rather pine over the imaginary feminine ideal in your mind than hear and respect the women speaking to you on this very web page. "
El Tigre wrote on Oct 10, 2008
" Sorry, there's nothing similar between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin other than the two are women. Hillary is clearly the most polished and smart. I'm sure Hillary reads magazines like Foreign Affairs, Int. Affairs, The Economist, and some academic magazines to get knowledge on the world. Palin didn't know any of them when asked by newswoman Couric. If someone seeking a top public office doesn't know the "Bush Doctrine", then he/she shouldn't be elected. After all, we suffer today due to the so-called "Bush Doctrine". Palin is no Hillary. "
Concerned_Citizen wrote on Oct 10, 2008
" The scariest part about Palin is that she would only be ONE heartbeat away from being our president. Conservative column writers are being honest that she is clearly NOT QUALIFIED to be in that position. It has nothing to do with gender. She is more of a detriment to the McCain ticket than a positive as she only appeals to the ultra right base, which she alread had going in. "
gericault wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" There is no comparison between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.This is like comparing John McCain with Ronald Reagan because they are both old.John McCain is NO Ronald Reagan!What media? Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren. Nice handholding. Did Katie Couric give Sarah too much rope? Those hard questions like"What do you read , and Name a supreme court ruling"?You Republicans should have not been so against Romney because he was a Mormon.He might have helped you a little with the economic meltdown. Not much, but better than Palin.McCain went for the rabid base and lost the election. "
billtheswede wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" Sounds like Eliza is one of those zombies from "Night of the Living Dead" walking around this nation without common sense. Most zombies cannot count to 100. "
Eliza wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" Gosh, thanks, Billtheswede! I always thought that preserving the planet we inhabit and defending the bodily autonomy of half its citizens was pretty important, but thank goodness you're here to school me (and, I assume, the rest of the sisterhood)!Just so we're clear, Palin and I disagree on nearly every crucial issue. However, since I don't believe her views on the war, the nation's foreign policy, the economy, or the deficit are much more than talking points rehearsed in the past month, I opted not to address them in my 100-word comment. "
billtheswede wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" In response to Eliza's comment regarding Palin anybody who considers a candidate's stance of being anti-choice and anti-environment as the most important issues facing the USA today is a very short-sighted individual. "
Mike O'Reilly wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" Crucified? Oh, stop. Palin has been ridiculed in the public prints not because she's a woman, but because she's so spectacularly, preposterously unfit for higher office. McCain pulled her out of bag during the convention, and since then she's done nothing but smirk, wink, and utter consummate gibberish. The woman is an utter bonehead, pushed in front of McCain to soak up the grapeshot fired at his inept campaign.
SoCalboomer wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" Just as you can get misunderstood when you try to speak to a native, when you are learning a new language, there are a lot of complexities in the sisterhood. First of all, women have brains and access to all kinds of thought and decision making processes that have little or nothing to do with gender. Secondly, women have only been able to vote since 1921, and not always had female candidates to choose from, so women have more expertise in evaluating candidates as a whole person, not just on gender alone. Also we're choosing a president not a VP. "
stepping_up wrote on Oct 9, 2008
" Yes, when a sister is unfairly treated or harmed, it is an attack on all of us. Sarah Palin unfairly treated the women of Wasala when she decided to save the city some money by billing rape victims for the kits used in the investigation. So yes, as a sister, I very rightfully question her decency as a woman and a human being. I'm outraged that you have the audacity to tell me that I should be defending this woman. She deserves to be held accountable for her personal beliefs when she issues legislation that harms women. "
Gina wrote on Oct 9, 2008
Your comment alone is sexist. You offend me by assuming I should not think for myself, only my gender and suggesting that women who do 'crucify' Palin are petty and jealous? Palin in no way represents ANYTHING in my belief system. Her experience thus far has been a scripted mess and the most recent personal attacks on Obama fill her 'speeches' with venom and fear mongering- again, Mrs. Jane Six Pack does NOT speak for me with her homophobic, anti-choice, book banning, $1.2 million dollar voice. AND Republicans DO NOT own the American flag- we all do! "
proud mom wrote on Oct 8, 2008
" I am a Christian mother of five and I don't support Sarah Palin because she is not who she says she is. First, she says she's a mother. Real mothers put their children FIRST. Second, she says she's a Christian. The Christian church opposes pre-marital sex, and Ms. Palin was pregnant before marriage, and so was her teenage daughter. Third, Ms. Palin says she's an American. Americans speak English, not Alaskan Ebonics. There's a reason why a pronunciation is included in American dictionaries. Sarah Palin is not representative of motherhood, Christianity, or America! "
Eliza wrote on Oct 8, 2008
" By the way---sexism should offend all PEOPLE, not just all WOMEN. :) "
eliza wrote on Oct 8, 2008
You're right: No woman should have to withstand attacks because of her gender. Feminists like myself have spoken vociferously against the rife sexism directed at both Palin and Clinton.But you, too, engage in sexism when youthrow all women into the "sisterhood" pile---as if we're interchangeable and indistinguishable, one big giggly sorority with a common charter. The notion that we should shelve our principles in order to elect a shockingly unqualified candidate just because she's female is the biggest insult of all.The anti-choice, anti-environment, homophobic Palin does not speak for me. Neither should you.
jamisings wrote on Oct 8, 2008 " Of course it should offend all women. It should offend anyone of any gender with half a brain. The problem is most of the attacks are being done by hypocritical women (and a few men) who can't see that Palin is the better choice for VP then Biden. Who are afraid because the Republicans were brave enough to do what the Democrats could not do. "
Balboa Res wrote on Oct 8, 2008
" It is more offensive to think that women should stick up for a woman who doesn't believe in women's rights. "
Published LA Times Daily Pilot Freedom Newspapers OC Register
Thursday, October 2, 2008
The OLD and the NEW
August 14, 2004
KABC Radio 790 AM
Mark,
You said the Democratic Party has changed....the only change I see is party members are less violent....which is good!!!....but not a change in core beliefs. The old Democrats wanted to restrict jews, blacks and catholics from indivudal progress. The new Democrats won't to restrict caucasians and asians from individual progress, especially in education opportunity......and I think jews are making the list again. The old Democrats supported and were members of racist groups like the KKK, and supported racist public policy (Jim Crow Laws). The new Democrats support and are members of racist groups like Mecha and La Raza and still support racist public policy (affirmative action, and all public laws based on race). And again the change is.............?
KABC Radio 790 AM
Mark,
You said the Democratic Party has changed....the only change I see is party members are less violent....which is good!!!....but not a change in core beliefs. The old Democrats wanted to restrict jews, blacks and catholics from indivudal progress. The new Democrats won't to restrict caucasians and asians from individual progress, especially in education opportunity......and I think jews are making the list again. The old Democrats supported and were members of racist groups like the KKK, and supported racist public policy (Jim Crow Laws). The new Democrats support and are members of racist groups like Mecha and La Raza and still support racist public policy (affirmative action, and all public laws based on race). And again the change is.............?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Governor PALIN and CHANGE
SARA PALIN, the Lady from Alaska could cause real change. Read the bio of Governor Palin. There is not much to dislike for the ladies or gentleman. If John Wayne wore skirts it could be Governor Palin. Yes, a person that could bring some earth moving changes on the political scene.
The changes are probably not what you think. Not a new governor riding in on a white horse to bring down the corrupt workings of Washington. Although a little housekeeping, like the California Governor was elected to do, would go a long way in Washington. No, something that could have a more long term effect. Governor Sara Palin of Alaska could change the Democrat Party. Like hell you say. Yes I say. There is a strong possibility the good governor could tare away the hold that the Democrat Party seems to have on women voters..especially young women voters. As already mentioned her bio is impressive. A lady of true grit in the making. However, more important is the Democrat Party itself. The VP pick has more experience than Senator Obama. This has to sting just a little. Especially since Senator Clinton also had more experience than Senator Obama. Many women in the Democrat Party feel, with some justification, that the current, good old boys, did a number on Senator Clinton. These ladies have some pay back for Obama. If it was short term OK. But, these changes will probably be permanent because the ladies have learned the hard way there is more, wide open, political oppurnity in the Republican Party than the Democrat Party. And, if you have strong political values, in the current environment, it does not make much difference if you are a Democrat or Republican.
Steve Young (D) Congressional Candidate for 48th. District- wrote:To suggest that women, Democrat or Republican will vote for Palin, without considering her political positions, preparation, or ability to lead, is dismissive of women, their intelligence, or discernment.I give women more credit than you do
.
R. Dixon wrote: I like that line: "...John Wayne in skirts..."! She is what this country has needed for the past several elections....someone willing to do the right thing without focus groups or polls or an unwillingness to stand up and say: "Yes, I did it, I did it because it was the right thing to do."
letter to editor- published - august 29 freedom newspapers - web edition la daily news, denver post, the sacramento union, town hall.com. sept.5, la times/dailypilot
The changes are probably not what you think. Not a new governor riding in on a white horse to bring down the corrupt workings of Washington. Although a little housekeeping, like the California Governor was elected to do, would go a long way in Washington. No, something that could have a more long term effect. Governor Sara Palin of Alaska could change the Democrat Party. Like hell you say. Yes I say. There is a strong possibility the good governor could tare away the hold that the Democrat Party seems to have on women voters..especially young women voters. As already mentioned her bio is impressive. A lady of true grit in the making. However, more important is the Democrat Party itself. The VP pick has more experience than Senator Obama. This has to sting just a little. Especially since Senator Clinton also had more experience than Senator Obama. Many women in the Democrat Party feel, with some justification, that the current, good old boys, did a number on Senator Clinton. These ladies have some pay back for Obama. If it was short term OK. But, these changes will probably be permanent because the ladies have learned the hard way there is more, wide open, political oppurnity in the Republican Party than the Democrat Party. And, if you have strong political values, in the current environment, it does not make much difference if you are a Democrat or Republican.
Steve Young (D) Congressional Candidate for 48th. District- wrote:To suggest that women, Democrat or Republican will vote for Palin, without considering her political positions, preparation, or ability to lead, is dismissive of women, their intelligence, or discernment.I give women more credit than you do
.
R. Dixon wrote: I like that line: "...John Wayne in skirts..."! She is what this country has needed for the past several elections....someone willing to do the right thing without focus groups or polls or an unwillingness to stand up and say: "Yes, I did it, I did it because it was the right thing to do."
letter to editor- published - august 29 freedom newspapers - web edition la daily news, denver post, the sacramento union, town hall.com. sept.5, la times/dailypilot
Sunday, September 21, 2008
NEW McCain same OLD Problem
May 11, 2006
Senator John Mc Cain,
We do not have a problem with immigration. We have a problem with selective enforcement of the law based on culture/religion/skin color ect. We have elected public officials/political parties/religious leaders/public employee unions et al., that advocate aid & abet unlawful conduct: human traffic, drug traffic, fraud in everything from social benefits to the election process, and a black market of labor and goods! All for the purpose of gaining political power, at the cost of our national sovereignty, under the guise of individual liberty and civil rights!!
We do not need nor desire a new system of appointing immigration judges.
We do not need nor desire new legislation/laws regarding legal or illegal immigration.
We do need and desire an immigration policy that does not cause a drain of treasury,
nor create a separatist nation within a nation.
We do need and desire for you to stand up!, Stand Up!, STAND UP and FIGHT for the integrity and sovereignty of the United States, against all others. (added Sept. 11, 2008)
We do need and desire to enforce the laws as they stand for we are a nation of laws first and foremost. We must do this for 10-15 years...then we can consider the need for new legislation, laws or policy.
We have not enforced current laws for the last 40 - 50 years....We have no idea how well they work or effects/affects of enforcement.
The road we are on is a very dangerous one. If authorities maintain a policy of selective law enforcement based on culture/religion/skin color ect., or make new laws to cover-up past failures...more and more citizens will attempt to fill that void or lack of enforcement. This road can only lead to a more authoritarian federal government, extreme civil unrest, or worst case; states seceding, civil war or both.
You have to decide what road you desire.
Respectfully,
ps: If we need more personnel use the Department of Education...they are not doing anything important!
Published LP News - June 2006
Senator McCain Staff Response: I do not understand the Senator's position on this matter.
Senator John Mc Cain,
We do not have a problem with immigration. We have a problem with selective enforcement of the law based on culture/religion/skin color ect. We have elected public officials/political parties/religious leaders/public employee unions et al., that advocate aid & abet unlawful conduct: human traffic, drug traffic, fraud in everything from social benefits to the election process, and a black market of labor and goods! All for the purpose of gaining political power, at the cost of our national sovereignty, under the guise of individual liberty and civil rights!!
We do not need nor desire a new system of appointing immigration judges.
We do not need nor desire new legislation/laws regarding legal or illegal immigration.
We do need and desire an immigration policy that does not cause a drain of treasury,
nor create a separatist nation within a nation.
We do need and desire for you to stand up!, Stand Up!, STAND UP and FIGHT for the integrity and sovereignty of the United States, against all others. (added Sept. 11, 2008)
We do need and desire to enforce the laws as they stand for we are a nation of laws first and foremost. We must do this for 10-15 years...then we can consider the need for new legislation, laws or policy.
We have not enforced current laws for the last 40 - 50 years....We have no idea how well they work or effects/affects of enforcement.
The road we are on is a very dangerous one. If authorities maintain a policy of selective law enforcement based on culture/religion/skin color ect., or make new laws to cover-up past failures...more and more citizens will attempt to fill that void or lack of enforcement. This road can only lead to a more authoritarian federal government, extreme civil unrest, or worst case; states seceding, civil war or both.
You have to decide what road you desire.
Respectfully,
ps: If we need more personnel use the Department of Education...they are not doing anything important!
Published LP News - June 2006
Senator McCain Staff Response: I do not understand the Senator's position on this matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
