http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/drc/localnews/politics/stories/DRC_burgess_0206.2311aa65.html
This is the story from Friday about Congressman Michael Burgess getting appointed to serve on the Joint Economic Committee.
So far, Dr. Burgess has been voting as he should. The answer is not large spending bills, the answer is tax relief to allow the businesses to grow. President Bush dropped the ball by supporting the first bailout bill that, by the way, did absolutely no good at all.
Do we really want the likes of King Barack and his minions deciding how much the head of a large company can make? Right now, he is putting ceilings on the salaries of CEO's of companies that accept bailout money, but it won't be long before he decides that all CEO's of hugely successful companies are paying themselves too much.
When he does that, will he reach to his Hollywood friends, you know, those overpaid actors and entertainers who are always trying to foist their liberal nonsence on American viewers, and dictate their salaries to them?
I tell you all, freedom and liberty are going to go away fast under this administration...uh...I mean, regime. WE NEED OUR CONSERVATIVE CONGRESSMEN TO PROTECT US.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
But the Emperor has no clothes...
http://www.lauraingraham.com/blog?categoryID=2
King Barack just kills me. I have listened to his comments on the failure of his "Economic Stimulus Plan" to pass out of the Congress. Listening to him is almost like hearing a petulent child who didn't get his way. This puerile mocking and scolding of the Representatives who aren't falling for his plan would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic, not to mention frightening that the guy we have leading us has less of a clue than Jimmy Carter. The shear arrogance and narcisism of King Barack is amazing to watch. Does he really believe that things are supposed to happen because he wills it?
King Barack just kills me. I have listened to his comments on the failure of his "Economic Stimulus Plan" to pass out of the Congress. Listening to him is almost like hearing a petulent child who didn't get his way. This puerile mocking and scolding of the Representatives who aren't falling for his plan would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic, not to mention frightening that the guy we have leading us has less of a clue than Jimmy Carter. The shear arrogance and narcisism of King Barack is amazing to watch. Does he really believe that things are supposed to happen because he wills it?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
It's a start, anyway
King Barack lets Daschle go. Apparently, Tom couldn't answer the question on the employment questionaire correctly. You know, the one that says: "do you have anything in your past or background that could cause embarrassment to the administration?"
I will only say that I am happy that he came to his senses on this one. Daschle is an embarrassment to South Dakota and the United States. To put a guy like him in a position of power after he was so soundly defeated in his own state would be the last insult to the American people. We would have to believe that there is no way we can get rid of these guys even after we run them out of office in the election.
Could it be that he will come to his senses on Pelosi's big bailout plan? Will he wake up and decide he really doesn't want that legacy?
I will only say that I am happy that he came to his senses on this one. Daschle is an embarrassment to South Dakota and the United States. To put a guy like him in a position of power after he was so soundly defeated in his own state would be the last insult to the American people. We would have to believe that there is no way we can get rid of these guys even after we run them out of office in the election.
Could it be that he will come to his senses on Pelosi's big bailout plan? Will he wake up and decide he really doesn't want that legacy?
To the anonymous poster of Feb. 1
I didn't post your comment because it had no substance. It proved my point that liberals can't really engage in sensible, logical argument without resorting to name calling. If you have something relevant to add, feel free to contribute. I am always glad to hear reasoned argument or debate.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Sunday DRC
My letter to the editor was published in today's paper. I am happy that it published, but I do admit that the letter could have been better. The main point was supposed to indicate opposition to using taxpayers to fund family planning (i.e.-abortion). Oh well, live and learn.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Response to some Commenters
Okay, I'm not an idiot. I would just like to point out that name calling is a thing that liberals tend to resort to when they embrace a logically untenable point.
There is nothing more innocent than an unborn child or a brand new child. The child has not had the opportunity to make good choices or bad choices for its life. The death of that unborn child by abortion can be blamed on no one but the person given the responsibility of protecting that innocent life. You say the child is the unwanted result of a sexual tryst or a sexual assault. No one really wants it so terminate it. Of all of the people involved in the conception of the child, who is most innocent and blameless? Right, it is the child. But who pays with his or her life? Right again, the child.
The justification is to say that the "conceived organism" is not a human being. "Human being" is defined as whatever the legislature chooses for a definition. How can the product of the union of two human beings that is alive and growing not be a human being? There is no logic to support that.
It is indeed very sad when innocents are hurt or killed in the course of a war. However, the parent may not have the ability or power to protect the child when the evil doers of their own country choose to hide behind civilians and children or to build militatry installations among children. Moral of that: if you have children that you want to protect, don't pick a fight with a superior nation. And by the way, you throw up the war and President Bush as some sort of justification to support taxpayer subsidized abortion? How does one wrong in an entirely unrelated theater or set of circumstances justify the commission of another, perhaps greater wrong?
As for murderers and rapists (both of which are subject to the death penalty in certain jurisdictions under certain circumstances), that is the absolute worst comparison to the innocent unborn child. The criminal has chosen his path. He has chosen the commit his evil deeds, and the rules prescribing his punishment are in place when he violates the law. You can argue that the criminal may have been set on his path by the mistreatment from his parents, but at some point, an adult becomes responsible for his own path and choices. At that point, it just pitiful and pathetic to blame parents for one's poor choices as an adult. The child has violated no law. The child has had no choice. He or she was just unlucky enough to be unwelcomed and unwanted.
I understand that people make mistakes and bad choices. I understand that a person may make the personal choice to kill their child. As long as it's legal, the only consequence is reconciling with your own conscience. The government should not be subsidizing this practice. If you want one, pay for it yourself. Or if you are a teenager, ask your parents to pay for the death of their grandchild.
Where is the logic of making the unborn child pay with his or her life for the mistakes, errors, poor choices (whatever semantics you choose) of the individuals responsble for conceiving him or her?
There is nothing more innocent than an unborn child or a brand new child. The child has not had the opportunity to make good choices or bad choices for its life. The death of that unborn child by abortion can be blamed on no one but the person given the responsibility of protecting that innocent life. You say the child is the unwanted result of a sexual tryst or a sexual assault. No one really wants it so terminate it. Of all of the people involved in the conception of the child, who is most innocent and blameless? Right, it is the child. But who pays with his or her life? Right again, the child.
The justification is to say that the "conceived organism" is not a human being. "Human being" is defined as whatever the legislature chooses for a definition. How can the product of the union of two human beings that is alive and growing not be a human being? There is no logic to support that.
It is indeed very sad when innocents are hurt or killed in the course of a war. However, the parent may not have the ability or power to protect the child when the evil doers of their own country choose to hide behind civilians and children or to build militatry installations among children. Moral of that: if you have children that you want to protect, don't pick a fight with a superior nation. And by the way, you throw up the war and President Bush as some sort of justification to support taxpayer subsidized abortion? How does one wrong in an entirely unrelated theater or set of circumstances justify the commission of another, perhaps greater wrong?
As for murderers and rapists (both of which are subject to the death penalty in certain jurisdictions under certain circumstances), that is the absolute worst comparison to the innocent unborn child. The criminal has chosen his path. He has chosen the commit his evil deeds, and the rules prescribing his punishment are in place when he violates the law. You can argue that the criminal may have been set on his path by the mistreatment from his parents, but at some point, an adult becomes responsible for his own path and choices. At that point, it just pitiful and pathetic to blame parents for one's poor choices as an adult. The child has violated no law. The child has had no choice. He or she was just unlucky enough to be unwelcomed and unwanted.
I understand that people make mistakes and bad choices. I understand that a person may make the personal choice to kill their child. As long as it's legal, the only consequence is reconciling with your own conscience. The government should not be subsidizing this practice. If you want one, pay for it yourself. Or if you are a teenager, ask your parents to pay for the death of their grandchild.
Where is the logic of making the unborn child pay with his or her life for the mistakes, errors, poor choices (whatever semantics you choose) of the individuals responsble for conceiving him or her?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
