I was able to listen to Herman Cain pontificate on why a republican president would be much more beneficial then a democrat. His reasoning of course went something like this: If candidate Clinton or candidate Obama were to be elected within five years we would have socialized medincine, which would hinder the ability of a so-called free people to use or go to a doctor of our choosing.
The European models are failing, Canada sends the U.S. many of their emergency pregnancy since they haven't the room to deal with this problem.
One only need to research the cost of health care and track the cost and one will discover that government has directly lead to much of the cost with over regulation and taking the marketplace out of the equation.
In the midst of making his point he clearly stated that a republican president will allow and institute free market solutions to a government prescribed health care crisis. Clearly Mr. Cain hasn't paid much attention to history dating back to President Lincoln, since the republican party and those elected to serve in a capacity of being republicans haven't yet attempted anything that would create one to belief the republicans are going to do as they are suggesting.
Once bitten, twice shy on any type of reform introduced by either mainstream candidate
Friday, September 14, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
nappy headed ho
I commend this action since to sue would've been a complete waste of time. To actually look at what Imus said was it true of false??
Imus made the comment of nappy headed ho about the Rutgers University women's basketball team. Loosely defined except for the sheer stupidity of saying it on the air I would imagine what Imus said was probably correct.
Many women in the feminist movement declare that all sex is rape or something very similar in terms. You might ask where I'm going with this line of logic.
A "HO" is according to Webster's Dictionary slang for whore which is loosely defined as someone who is sexually promiscuous, which unless the victim is a virgin I believe proving slander should've been quite difficult to prove what he said was WRONG.
My take whether you agree with it or not.
Rutgers Player Withdraws Imus Lawsuit
NEW YORK (AP) — A Rutgers University basketball player on Tuesday withdrew a slander and defamation lawsuit she had filed against Don Imus and CBS Radio, among others, after the shock jock called the team "nappy headed hos."
Kia Vaughn had contended in the lawsuit filed in August in New York state Supreme Court that the comments made by Imus had damaged her reputation. The lawsuit also named various media outlets that broadcast Imus' show.
Marti McKenzie, a spokeswoman for Vaughn's attorney, Richard Ancowitz, said in a statement that Vaughn had chosen to focus on her education at New Jersey's Rutgers University as a journalism major and as an athlete with the basketball team.
"Her strong commitments to both have influenced her decision to withdraw the lawsuit at this time," the statement said.
A lawyer for Imus, Martin Garbus, said his client had paid no money to Vaughn. CBS Radio did not immediately return a message requesting comment.
Imus made the comment of nappy headed ho about the Rutgers University women's basketball team. Loosely defined except for the sheer stupidity of saying it on the air I would imagine what Imus said was probably correct.
Many women in the feminist movement declare that all sex is rape or something very similar in terms. You might ask where I'm going with this line of logic.
A "HO" is according to Webster's Dictionary slang for whore which is loosely defined as someone who is sexually promiscuous, which unless the victim is a virgin I believe proving slander should've been quite difficult to prove what he said was WRONG.
My take whether you agree with it or not.
Rutgers Player Withdraws Imus Lawsuit
NEW YORK (AP) — A Rutgers University basketball player on Tuesday withdrew a slander and defamation lawsuit she had filed against Don Imus and CBS Radio, among others, after the shock jock called the team "nappy headed hos."
Kia Vaughn had contended in the lawsuit filed in August in New York state Supreme Court that the comments made by Imus had damaged her reputation. The lawsuit also named various media outlets that broadcast Imus' show.
Marti McKenzie, a spokeswoman for Vaughn's attorney, Richard Ancowitz, said in a statement that Vaughn had chosen to focus on her education at New Jersey's Rutgers University as a journalism major and as an athlete with the basketball team.
"Her strong commitments to both have influenced her decision to withdraw the lawsuit at this time," the statement said.
A lawyer for Imus, Martin Garbus, said his client had paid no money to Vaughn. CBS Radio did not immediately return a message requesting comment.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Ron Paul: LUNATIC??
You can only "parrot" the party line and not think outside the box. I hear many people complaining about the stances of Ron Paul and I attribute this to a lack of understanding of the Constitution.
We have a local radio host here in the Queen City which has this problem.
A favorite saying of Herman Cain goes as follows "when you can't attack the message attack the messenger", however Mr. Cain uses this statement against democrats anytime they disagree with any stance of the republicans. I find it quite amusing that this simple statement seems to go only one direction. It isn't as simple as republican right and democrat wrong. The simple fact that our local host isn't willing to think outside the republican box because he himself is scared that somehow the information he is feeding his listeners is tainted.
The U.S. has been over seas for years and the evidence of 9/11 has been on the horizon however it has been ignored for years. Yes there is something called the "blowback" factor and we should learn from it.
The original "blowback" factor occured September 11, 1857. To discount this as a lunacy is not learning from history. I suggest the host learn the Constitution and what LIMITATIONS were placed on the federal government.
It IS NOT the JOB of the federal government to spread democracy around the world and until many on the republican side and democrat side learn the written words of the Constitution and abide by them we shall be subject to any group which dispises our infringing government.
http://www.ksgf.com/Portals/67/KSGF%20Audio/This%20week/KSGF_090707_Hr1_Seg2_Traders%20to%20America.mp3
http://www.ksgf.com/Portals/67/KSGF%20Audio/This%20week/KSGF_091107_Hr2_Seg4_Guest%20Host%20Glenn_Ron%20Paul%20and%20Democratic%20canidates.mp3
http://www.ksgf.com/Portals/67/KSGF%20Audio/This%20week/KSGF_091107_Hr2_Seg3_Guest%20Host%20Glenn_Cool%20President.mp3
I add the following from a person I consider a friend and a patriot. Clearly this answer is related to a topic much similar to this blog entry.
Thank you Jeremy
"I unfortunately cannot agree with you on this one.
First, Ron Paul isn't an isolationist. He doesn't want to shut off the U.S. from other countries. He mostly refers to himself as a non-interventionist.
Also, I think Muslims have the right to practice their religion as they see fit. Freedom of Religion is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and applies to everyone as long as their practice does not interfere or violate the rights of others.
As far as the extremists, Paul argues that it is because of our CURRENT foreign policy (and that of the past) that contributes to any hatred of America and the western world. I would happen to agree with him.
Of course, the western world has been trying to shape the Middle East for centuries now, but I think our modern attempt began around 1917 when the British started getting involved again (let me know if I'm wrong). Since then, we've been pushing and pulling on the region relentlessly. Of recent, didn't we have a hand in creating Hussein? And didn't we have a hand in creating Osama Bin Laden? And didn't we have a hand in starting a revolt in Iran?
When did we start thinking that war was alright in the first place? Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, nor did they have weapons of destruction, nor did Hussein support Al-qaeda (from what I've read, he actually hated them). So why are we there? It's not because of terrorism. Some may say to help spread Democracy....that's not our job. Paul would rather open the borders to communication and free trade, allow our markets to penetrate a country's defenses.
And who said anything about surrendering? I am sure there are plenty of times when it is better to surrender than to stay the current course, but I don't recall hearing surrender. He merely wants to leave a war that should not have been started, as I am sure many agree with and it's actually what he's been saying since before the war.
Plus, I feel that saying "Look at Europe now Muslim ways of life are slowly taking over" is a bit prejudice and a statement made by many that just don't know many practitioners of Islam and fear what they don't know. I know a practicing Muslim that was the circuit court judge in Corpus Christi. He was a GREAT man and I would have trusted my life with him, if the need ever arose. He had a very high respect for the Constitution and what it means to be free. The truth is, Muslims aren't a major problem, just as Christians, Jews, and Hindus aren't a major problem (I apologize if I missed yours). If we were protecting the CONSTITUTION like we should have been for these past 200 years....no group could "take over" the country by simply moving here for a better life.
I, personally, am much more fearful of the group of people, leading this country, that are taking our rights and liberties away at an extremely accelerated rate. People that think that it will protect ME if I get spied on by a satellite. People that think it will protect ME if I have to carry a national ID card. People that think it will protect ME if I cannot carry a weapon for self defense. People that think it will protect ME if I can have all my phone conversations listened to. People that think it will protect ME if I can have all my financial and personal information sifted and sorted through and shared with the other governments of the world. People that think it will protect ME if I allow the Constitution to become null and void.
War should almost never be brought up. It is destruction and leaves many dead and many more broken. Over 3700 of our troops, fellow U.S. citizens, that took on the responsibility and an oath to protect our Constitution have given their lives in a conflict that should not have been started. Over 71,000 Iraqi citizens, non-combatants, have died during this conflict as well.
The war in Iraq makes no more sense than attempting to lock people up because they live in a state where there are people that might commit a crime".
We have a local radio host here in the Queen City which has this problem.
A favorite saying of Herman Cain goes as follows "when you can't attack the message attack the messenger", however Mr. Cain uses this statement against democrats anytime they disagree with any stance of the republicans. I find it quite amusing that this simple statement seems to go only one direction. It isn't as simple as republican right and democrat wrong. The simple fact that our local host isn't willing to think outside the republican box because he himself is scared that somehow the information he is feeding his listeners is tainted.
The U.S. has been over seas for years and the evidence of 9/11 has been on the horizon however it has been ignored for years. Yes there is something called the "blowback" factor and we should learn from it.
The original "blowback" factor occured September 11, 1857. To discount this as a lunacy is not learning from history. I suggest the host learn the Constitution and what LIMITATIONS were placed on the federal government.
It IS NOT the JOB of the federal government to spread democracy around the world and until many on the republican side and democrat side learn the written words of the Constitution and abide by them we shall be subject to any group which dispises our infringing government.
http://www.ksgf.com/Portals/67/KSGF%20Audio/This%20week/KSGF_090707_Hr1_Seg2_Traders%20to%20America.mp3
http://www.ksgf.com/Portals/67/KSGF%20Audio/This%20week/KSGF_091107_Hr2_Seg4_Guest%20Host%20Glenn_Ron%20Paul%20and%20Democratic%20canidates.mp3
http://www.ksgf.com/Portals/67/KSGF%20Audio/This%20week/KSGF_091107_Hr2_Seg3_Guest%20Host%20Glenn_Cool%20President.mp3
I add the following from a person I consider a friend and a patriot. Clearly this answer is related to a topic much similar to this blog entry.
Thank you Jeremy
"I unfortunately cannot agree with you on this one.
First, Ron Paul isn't an isolationist. He doesn't want to shut off the U.S. from other countries. He mostly refers to himself as a non-interventionist.
Also, I think Muslims have the right to practice their religion as they see fit. Freedom of Religion is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and applies to everyone as long as their practice does not interfere or violate the rights of others.
As far as the extremists, Paul argues that it is because of our CURRENT foreign policy (and that of the past) that contributes to any hatred of America and the western world. I would happen to agree with him.
Of course, the western world has been trying to shape the Middle East for centuries now, but I think our modern attempt began around 1917 when the British started getting involved again (let me know if I'm wrong). Since then, we've been pushing and pulling on the region relentlessly. Of recent, didn't we have a hand in creating Hussein? And didn't we have a hand in creating Osama Bin Laden? And didn't we have a hand in starting a revolt in Iran?
When did we start thinking that war was alright in the first place? Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, nor did they have weapons of destruction, nor did Hussein support Al-qaeda (from what I've read, he actually hated them). So why are we there? It's not because of terrorism. Some may say to help spread Democracy....that's not our job. Paul would rather open the borders to communication and free trade, allow our markets to penetrate a country's defenses.
And who said anything about surrendering? I am sure there are plenty of times when it is better to surrender than to stay the current course, but I don't recall hearing surrender. He merely wants to leave a war that should not have been started, as I am sure many agree with and it's actually what he's been saying since before the war.
Plus, I feel that saying "Look at Europe now Muslim ways of life are slowly taking over" is a bit prejudice and a statement made by many that just don't know many practitioners of Islam and fear what they don't know. I know a practicing Muslim that was the circuit court judge in Corpus Christi. He was a GREAT man and I would have trusted my life with him, if the need ever arose. He had a very high respect for the Constitution and what it means to be free. The truth is, Muslims aren't a major problem, just as Christians, Jews, and Hindus aren't a major problem (I apologize if I missed yours). If we were protecting the CONSTITUTION like we should have been for these past 200 years....no group could "take over" the country by simply moving here for a better life.
I, personally, am much more fearful of the group of people, leading this country, that are taking our rights and liberties away at an extremely accelerated rate. People that think that it will protect ME if I get spied on by a satellite. People that think it will protect ME if I have to carry a national ID card. People that think it will protect ME if I cannot carry a weapon for self defense. People that think it will protect ME if I can have all my phone conversations listened to. People that think it will protect ME if I can have all my financial and personal information sifted and sorted through and shared with the other governments of the world. People that think it will protect ME if I allow the Constitution to become null and void.
War should almost never be brought up. It is destruction and leaves many dead and many more broken. Over 3700 of our troops, fellow U.S. citizens, that took on the responsibility and an oath to protect our Constitution have given their lives in a conflict that should not have been started. Over 71,000 Iraqi citizens, non-combatants, have died during this conflict as well.
The war in Iraq makes no more sense than attempting to lock people up because they live in a state where there are people that might commit a crime".
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Whoopi steps in it
I didn't watch the show, however I did get to hear her comments on the Michael Vick issue and to try to lay blame at his heritage and where he was born and raised is sheer looniacy.
Try using that excuse for an extreme southern white redneck type with a confederate flag attached to the back window of the pick-up truck with a gun rack and you would be laughed off the national stage.
NEW YORK -- Whoopi Goldberg started her stint on ABC's "The View" Tuesday by coming to the defense of convicted felon Michael Vick. Just 15 minutes into the show she brought up Vick's conviction on dogfighting charges.
"You know from his background this is not an unusual thing for where he comes from," said Goldberg. "There are certain things that are indicative to certain parts of our country."
Co-host Joy Behar seemed shocked at Goldberg's statements. "How about dog torture and dog murdering," Behar asked.
"Unfortunately it's part of the thing," Goldberg replied. "You're a dog lover. For a lot of people dogs are sport," she added.
Behar continued to shake her head in disgust.
Michael Vick was raised in Newport News, VA which just also happens to be home to Mike Tomlin and some very other notable famous people like Ella Fitzgerald, quarterback Aaron Brooks, basketball thug Allen Iverson, Pearl Bailey and other notables.
I wonder if you ask Aaron Brooks, thug Iverson or even Mr. Tomlin if they took part in dog fighting rings because of being raised in Newport News, VA if the answer would follow Whoopie's logic. I doubt this to be the case.
Whoopie you bring new meaning to the word IDIOT
Try using that excuse for an extreme southern white redneck type with a confederate flag attached to the back window of the pick-up truck with a gun rack and you would be laughed off the national stage.
NEW YORK -- Whoopi Goldberg started her stint on ABC's "The View" Tuesday by coming to the defense of convicted felon Michael Vick. Just 15 minutes into the show she brought up Vick's conviction on dogfighting charges.
"You know from his background this is not an unusual thing for where he comes from," said Goldberg. "There are certain things that are indicative to certain parts of our country."
Co-host Joy Behar seemed shocked at Goldberg's statements. "How about dog torture and dog murdering," Behar asked.
"Unfortunately it's part of the thing," Goldberg replied. "You're a dog lover. For a lot of people dogs are sport," she added.
Behar continued to shake her head in disgust.
Michael Vick was raised in Newport News, VA which just also happens to be home to Mike Tomlin and some very other notable famous people like Ella Fitzgerald, quarterback Aaron Brooks, basketball thug Allen Iverson, Pearl Bailey and other notables.
I wonder if you ask Aaron Brooks, thug Iverson or even Mr. Tomlin if they took part in dog fighting rings because of being raised in Newport News, VA if the answer would follow Whoopie's logic. I doubt this to be the case.
Whoopie you bring new meaning to the word IDIOT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)