About Me

Name:The New THOMA$ REPORT
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Shutting Down the Opposition

If Obama is so "squeaky clean," why does he constantly try and "shut down" people who come out with "telling" facts against him? [Sounds like Bill Clinton. -RT] Hugh Hewitt says, "The Bill Ayers-Barack Obama connection is much deeper and more significant than either Obama or the MSM has allowed. [Is anybody surprised? -RT] Analyst Stanley Kurtz is digging into the previously closed papers on the Annenberg Project at the University of Illinois, and last night the Obama forces tried to shut down Kurtz's conversations about his preliminary findings, just as Team Obama tried to get the department of Justice to shut down a 527 running an ad about Obama-Ayers. Think the Obama people are nervous about Ayers? Perhaps they realize that America isn't going to like a presidential nominee who is buddy buddy with an unrepentant terrorist." Obama has a much more than one-time meeting association with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. It's NOT "guilt by association." It is an association lasting YEARS and shows Obama's way of thinking that hr remains friends with Ayers. I personally don't want ANYBODY who maintains a friendship with a KNOWN terrorist (who got away with it) as president. Especially one who, even BWFORE he is elected (If, in fact he is) tries to "shut people down" when they try and tell the truth about him. (Hugh Hewitt)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Still Buying the Socialist Bulldroppings

A caller to a talk show asked if it "wouldn't be a good thing" to take more money from those who made more than $250,000 a year and give it to those who don't (pure socialism). Why he casn't see how evil this is, I don't know. It must be because he's been taught the "socialist lie" all the way through school and doesn't know any better. Giving money to those "drones" of society will "sap" the incentive from society and soon there will BE no more people making that much money for them to steal from for the benefit of the "drones." (Jeff Poor)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ARE WE "Addicted to Oil?"

Are YOU "addicted to fire? Fire is an absolute NECESSITY to life. What about water? The discovery of fire and how to make it caused a "sea change" in how we lived. So did the original discovery of "fossil oil." Whale oil just did not do the job, and required the killing of whales, something environmentalists (extremists and otherwise) don't like, and never have. Obama has promised to "get us off the oil standard in ten years." what ignorance that displays! Does he realize how that would affect our way of life? It would put us back at least 100 years, even if he could do it without a revolution. We are NOT "addicted" to oil, no more than we are "addicted" to fire or water. The liberals like to say it will take "MORE than ten years to realize any benefit" from drilling domestically. So why didn't they allow domestic drilling TEN YEARS AGO? How long will it take before we realize any benefit from their pipedreams, such as "wind power," "sun power," and "corn power (Ethanol)?" We know oil WORKS. We DON'T know their pipe dreams will work, so why are we rejecting something we KNOW works in favor of something that is still largely a "pipe dream?" They're claiming that oil companies have "millions of acres" of oil leases they own in America, but they aren't "working them." Why aren't they working them? Mostly because of the onerous "regulations" environmental crazies have been able to put on them. Not to mention the fact that most of these vaunted "oil leases" aren't worth a damn. There isn't any "economically recoverable" oil there. (Translation: oil they can make a profit from bringing up) Yes, I know "profit" is a "dirty word" to a liberal (Democrat). But it is profit that makes this world work, whether liberals like it or not, even for communist countries like China, who must make a profit in world markets, even if they don't allow their people to do so.). Socialism does not produce a profit. Capitalism does. Why are the Democrats (liberals) doing everything they can to destroy the oil companies? (Charles Anderson/The Atlasphere)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hatred of Free Markets

The "haters of free markets" are very angry. Angry because they have not been allowed to "vet" the new Milton Friedman Institute." That's like allowing the cat to "vet" the mouse. They're afraid Freidman's free market ideas will show them for the idiots they are; and they're right. They're worried about "academic freedom" if ideas other than their pipe dreams are taught. Seems like telling "both sides" and letting the students decide logically who is right IS "academic freedom. They say it will "make the public PERCIEVE that they 'lack intellectual and ideological diversity'." And they're right, It WILL show that this is true. So what's wrong with that? (Common Sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Profit Hatred

“ 'Behind every great fortune, there is a crime.' Balzac’s famous quotation is quite likely an accurate description of the economic climate of authoritarian 19th Century France. But as any fan of Ayn Rand’s novels--and indeed the American dream in general--can attest, a great many fortunes can be, and often are, made quickly and ethically when people are left to pursue their own interests via free enterprise. Warren Buffet and Linus Torvalds are two among millions of examples, here. It’s only the insecure, the 'second-handers,' the inferior producers of inferior products--the Peter Keatings and Orren Boyles of the world--that need to create and maintain their wealth by unethical means." (Kimberly Wingfield on "The Atlasphere") One of their unethical means in Ayn Rand's monumental work, "Atlas Shrugged," was "Directive 10-289," something that would be patently unconstitutional in the real world (but which was excellently illustrative), demanded that big business have a "moratorium on brains" and give others time to "catch up." The only problem is, the people this directive was designed to help would NEVER "catch up" without help from the government, to limit competition. And that's what today's liberals are trying to do, to gain power. The new tactic the "second-hander" businessmen are using (with government help) is the "FDA Globalization Act of 2008," which basically creates a $2,000 "fee" that all cosmetology companies (big or small) must pay the government in order to be in business. What the government promises to do in return for this "fee" isn't known. The last I heard, new "fees" should be supported by promises to help the industry involved. Not this one. A "fee" of this size guarantees fewer "start-ups" in the cosmetics business, just as a similar fee would have made it impossible for me to start my own business. The big companies won't have any trouble paying this and passing it on to their customers. It's the "little guy" who will be hurt the most while the businesses who promoted this unfair law will benefit when these small businesses go out of business (or never start) because the government just took away a big part of their profit while making it impossible for others to even start business. Hear that "giant sucking sound?" (Stolen from Ross Perot) It's the government sucking more money out of people's pockets. There is no good reason for this "fee," except to limit competition for those who have "pull" in Washington. Have you heard about this "Act" in the liberal media? I thought not. (Kimberly Wingfield/TheAtlasphere) 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »