|
| MORE ON REPUBLICANS |
| Friday, April 28, 2006 |
| You know, I think the left loses respect for a party when it tries to become more representative of their views. You see, I know a lot of people who are on the left and many are people of principle. The Republican Party has moved from right to left in an effort to appease, court and expand its power. The sum total is that they will lose their constituents and fail to win those they are so desperately trying to be like.
|
posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/28/2006 03:43:00 PM   |
|
|
|
| LOSING THEIR WAY... |
|
| The Cato Institute: "President Bush's inability to curtail Congressional spending and his failure to offer small government conservatism have led to 'a growing perception among the American people that the Republicans have become corrupt,' writes Tucker Carlson in the latest Cato's Letter. This, he argues, has alienated the very people who voted for Bush and will cost Republicans dearly in the upcoming midterm elections." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/28/2006 03:00:00 PM |
|
|
|
| INTERESTING ARTICLE (Abortion debate) |
| Thursday, April 27, 2006 |
| Pro-life answers to pro-choice questions - abortion arguments, pro-life v abortion, facts on abortion: "The abortion lobby has always realized that abortion itself is indefensible. This has forced them to argue that whether abortion is the deliberate killing of a living human being or not, is unrelated to the question of whether it should be legal. In short, they have to divert attention toward the philosophical concepts of �choice� and �who decides� because they can�t afford for the public to look at what�s being chosen and decided. " |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/27/2006 08:42:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Cuss Control: So What's Wrong With Swearing |
| Wednesday, April 26, 2006 |
| I have been interested in the concept of swearing (cussin' for us common folk) for some time and have always viewed its use with an inquisitive mind. I was not aware that there are actual schools out there to help someone overcome swearing (not from a religious perspective--but a business one).
Here is what it says about the subject:
Cuss Control: So What's Wrong With Swearing: "Swearing Imposes a Personal Penalty
It gives a bad impression
It makes you unpleasant to be with
It endangers your relationships
It's a tool for whiners and complainers
It reduces respect people have for you
It shows you don't have control
It's a sign of a bad attitude
It discloses a lack of character
It's immature
It reflects ignorance
It sets a bad example
Swearing is Bad for Society
It contributes to the decline of civility
It represents the dumbing down of America
It offends more people than you think
It makes others uncomfortable
It is disrespectful of others
It turns discussions into arguments
It can be a sign of hostility
It can lead to violence
Swearing corrupts the English language
It's abrasive, lazy language
It doesn't communicate clearly
It neglects more meaningful words
It lacks imagination
It has lost its effectiveness " |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/26/2006 03:05:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Big oil bashing reaches peak |
|
| I don't have a huge problem with President Bush deciding to investigate whether oil companies have illegally manipulated prices, but when they don't find any criminal pricing activity (again), can we please put a moratorium on investigating oil company profits?
The President is trying to protect his Republican friends' political flanks by bowing to Bill O'Reilly's pitchfork brigade and distancing his party from greedy oil companies.
Thankfully, he and his team are rejecting the demand by a bunch of Michigan politicians to cap oil company profits. I'm not sure those pols know that their state pension fund includes 13-million shares of ExxonMobile stock. Normally, major shareholders don't try to put artificial caps on the profits they are earning, but politicians are anything but normal.
According to Democrats, populists and other liberals, a 10 percent profit for oil companies is "obscene." If that's true, either there's a whole lot of obscenity in business or oil companies are held to a different standard. Apparently that different standard is because gasoline is something that everyone has to have (they have us over a barrel so to speak), so people who sell gasoline should accept lower profits than other businesses.
I don't know about you, but I feel like I have to have a car too. Otherwise, I would have very little use for the gasoline that I have to have. Well, one of the world's leading car companies, Honda, just reported record profits for the first quarter of 2006 - more than double what they were a year ago. That's obscene! We need to cap car company profits immediately.
Sharp, a company that makes liquid crystal TV sets and cell phones, reported a big increase in profits in the last quarter and is forecasting a record year. That's obscene. It's time to put a cap on TV and cell phone profits.
I have to have a car, a TV and a cell phone. I can't get along without any of those things. They are obviously gouging me, and I demand a government investigation!
In fact, 70 percent of all of the publicly owned companies that have reported earnings for the first quarter have beaten analysts' expectation, creating a lot of confidence in the stock market again. It seems that obscene profits are saturating the entire market place and making stockholders giddy about the future of their 401k accounts.
But wait - how can that be? If we are spending all of the cash in our pockets on gasoline, how do we have any left over to buy cars, LCD TV sets and cell phones - in large enough quantities to create record sales and profits for the companies that sell them - and a whole lot of other things too?
This darned greedy capitalist market place is a very strange fellow. It just ignores people's griping, accepts the money they spend and goes about its business making profits, creating jobs and providing stuff we all want. I wonder how that might change if we let politicians decide how much profit companies should make
The Ralph Bristol Show |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/26/2006 09:27:00 AM |
|
|
|
| Losing Patience... |
| Tuesday, April 25, 2006 |
| Sen. Russ Feingold's leadership PAC sponsored an Internet video making an unfounded suggestion that President Bush is being urged to eavesdrop "on anybody who has the nerve to disagree with [him] - court order or not."
A Feingold spokesman says the ad is a parody. Funny or not, it makes an accusation for which there's no evidence.
Feingold himself says in the video that "our country hasn't stood for this kind of abuse of power in 200 years." We think he's forgetting such things as FDR's forced internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans in World War II, and Lincoln's summary jailings of Confederate sympathizers.
Check out the whole article at: Factcheck.org |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/25/2006 12:32:00 PM |
|
|
|
| ARRGGH!! |
|
| AND JUST WHO WOULD END UP PAYING THOSE TAXES, YOU CLUELESS POLITICAL HACK!?!
The Cato Institute: "Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., argued on CNN's 'Late Edition' that he believes the government should consider a 'windfall profits tax,' which would tax oil companies making large profits while gasoline prices continue to rise." |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/25/2006 11:01:00 AM |
|
|
|
| GAS PRICE PROBE |
|
| Has anyone thought to probe Congress and the latest joke of an energy bill? |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/25/2006 10:37:00 AM |
|
|
|
| Fired CIA agent hailed as hero |
| Monday, April 24, 2006 |
| I was a bit stunned Sunday as I watched the roundtables on NBC, ABC and Fox News. I saw folks comparing CIA leaker Mary McCarthy to the civil disobeyers in the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s. That's quite a stretch.
McCarthy has been fired from her sensitive CIA post after telling a Washington Post reporter about some (previously) secret prisons we operated in foreign countries to house and interrogate terror suspects. The Post reporter won a Pulitzer Prize for the story.
To be clear, I am very happy that we operate some secret prisons for such purposes. I wish they were still secret. I think it harms the war effort and our national security for someone to disclose the information. (Do you suppose that could be why it was classified?)
McCarthy is not being charged with a crime, but she was fired for violating the oath that she and all CIA folks take - to not disclose classified information.
McCarthy apparently believes the secret prisons are offensive - that they violate American principles. Exactly what American principles they violate, I'm not sure - unless McCarthy believes that we should afford our foreign enemies the same constitutional protections that we promise our citizens. If that's what she believes, she should work for the al Qaeda branch of the ACLU, not the CIA.
Others engaged in the debate seemed to think that McCarthy should not be respected, but could have earned their respect if her civil disobedience had been done openly. George Will was in that group. He said, "She didn't do the honorable thing in that she did it surreptitiously and got caught. You cite the civil rights movement. That was civil disobedience, the adjective modifies the noun for a purpose. Disobedience is civil when it is public and when you invite and take the consequences. She did not."
That's a little too high-minded for me. I believe disobedience should be judged on its merit, not its openness. Secretly disclosing information to the press about administrative misdeeds is admirable civil disobedience. Doing so openly might be more courageous, but a good deed need not invite negative consequences to be a good deed. The trick is to be able to recognize actual misdeeds.
The reason McCarthy is not to be admired is not because of her lack of courage, it is because of her silly distortion of American principles that serve to assist our enemies in their effort to destroy America and the very principles that she pretends to hold so dear.
The Ralph Bristol Show |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/24/2006 10:31:00 AM |
|
|
|
| For my friend Shea |
| Friday, April 21, 2006 |
| Who believes only Republicans capable of corruption.
BREITBART.COM - Senior Democrat Exits House Ethics Panel: "The top Democrat on the House ethics committee, Alan Mollohan, will leave the panel _ at least temporarily _ while he defends his own financial conduct, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Friday.
Mollohan's decision comes in an election year when his party is accusing majority Republicans of allowing a 'culture of corruption' in Congress. " |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/21/2006 07:58:00 PM |
|
|
|
| Bi Partisan Balogna (Lies) |
|
DNC Radio Ad: "Tough and Smart"
(English Translation)
Announcer: Democrats support tough and smart immigration reform.
We want to strengthen our borders; as well as U.S. workers and their wages. We want for immigrants who obey the law and pay taxes to be able to apply for U.S. citizenship.
That's immigration reform that matches American values: tough and smart.
Now Republicans are lying to us.
They control Congress and the White House, and in five years have done nothing. They've failed.
If they wanted comprehensive immigration reform and to protect our borders, they would have done it already.
But what Republicans and President Bush supported was a plan that would criminalize immigrants, families, doctors, and even churches just for giving communion.
Call Republican Senator Bill Frist at 202-224-3135 and tell him to allow a vote on immigration reform.
Paid for by Democratic National Committee.
www.democrats.org. This communication not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
The DNC is responsible for the content of this advertising.
Source: Factcheck.org
NRCC Ad: "Exceptions"
(On Screen: footage of Francine Busby holding up her left hand.)
(On Screen text: Francine Busby...said she's different.)
Announcer: Francine Busby...said she's different.
(On Screen: Busby speaking into a microphone)
(On screen text: End gifts by lobbyists. End financial arrangements with government contractors.)
Announcer: She'd end gifts by lobbyists and financial deals with government contractors.
(On Screen: Busby speaking into a microphone, holding up both hands)
(On screen text: No exceptions)
Announcer: Busby said "no exceptions."
(On Screen: Busby, behind a microphone, putting a hand to her face as names scroll across the back of the screen.)
( On Screen text: Thousands of dollars f rom lobbyists & employees of Government Contractors)
Announcer: Now we discover...Busby has taken thousands of dollars of campaign money from lobbyists and employees of government contractors...
( On Screen: Fade into a photo of Dennis DeConcini behind a microphone.)
(On screen text: Dennis DeConcini, "Scandal-tainted...," "...hit by ethics scandals...")
Announcer:...including money from a scandal plagued lobbyist who left Congress after a pay for play scandal.
(On screen text: No exceptions, huh?)
Announcer: No exceptions, huh?
Announcer: Except for Francine Busby.
(On Screen: footage of Busby behind a microphone.)
(On Screen Text: Except for Francine Busby.)
Announcer: The National Republican Congressional Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.
Source: Factcheck.org
IF YOU ARE PLACING YOUR TRUST IN EITHER OF THESE PARTIES YOU ARE A BIGGER FOOL THAN THEY ARE. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/21/2006 03:23:00 PM |
|
|
|
| The Far Left |
| Tuesday, April 18, 2006 |
Note: The following contains generalizations and is applicable only to a small minority of people.
The FAR left presents itself as many things that it isn't. As a matter of fact, if one observes the far left they will notice a striking similarity to the FAR right. Why is that? Because the far left and far right are principally the same--they only differ in ideology:
They present as tolerant
But are bigotted and prejudiced
They claim to be loving
But promote hatred
They say they are about unity
But refuse to unite on others terms and thus spread derision and division
They say they are about freedom
But are the first to empower government to limit fundamental freedoms
They say they are about equality
But are the first to advocate inequities
They say they are about peace
But advocate violence
They maintain that they want serenity
But live lives of anger
They claim higher cognition and intellect
But their dialogue is unimaginative, coarse and simple
They say they are knowledgeable
But argue from a position of ignorance and refuse to consider other viewpoints
They claim to be moral
But are the first to defend evil
Tomorrow - The Far Right |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/18/2006 10:20:00 AM |
|
|
|
| Blogtegrity |
| Saturday, April 08, 2006 |
| There are some bloggers online who don't belong online.
I have often said that ideologues are narrow minded and unopened to other ideas, or even the truth, at times (I am speaking of a liberal ideologue, but it can apply to any). Facts are immaterial much of the time. If you disagree with them, they are always right, and if YOU happen to be right they become the masters of censorship and the first to limit "free speech".
"Ideology has very little to do with 'consciousness' -- it is profoundly unconscious." Louis Althusser
I generally try to be polite on ideological sites (although I haven't always been), but more importantly I try to stick to facts or offer counterpoint. I have been cussed out, threatened and even banned from some sites.
The latest example is that I am finally censored altogether:
Constantly Amazed
At this site, in an article titled: "Republican Family Values x 3: Repukes Gone Wild!" (I think that the title was later revised) , I pointed out to this blogger that nowhere in the articles referenced did it mention that the people that the blogger was indicting were referred to as Republicans, or that they were appointed positions (as opposed to hired--I suspect they are hired positions).
Since this did not fit in well with the statement he wanted to make, he deleted my comment. I went back to visit his blog (which I frequently do) and my comment was gone. Since I am advanced in age, I thought that maybe I had not actually posted, but suspected still that my comment had been deleted. So, I posted my comment again, and took a Printkey photo of it.
Low and behold, I went back to see if there was a response to my comment and my comment was deleted again!
The problem I have with this, is when I put forth a fact that would dismantle his whole post, this blogger refused to revise or delete his post. Instead, he eliminated any counterpoint.
Here is the image of the site as it is now
Here is the image of my comment that was deleted twice.
I have a problem with this. Not because this is a man of any consequence, but because he promotes himself as a friend to some very good people, and yet has no problem deceiving them. It is so important to him that he be considered right all of the time, that he does not mind feeding friends who trust him deception. I have done a lot of despicable things in my life, but I don't think I could ever be accused of deceiving a friend. He would rather be "right" than honest, and he has no problem sacrificing the trust of his friends to promote his agenda. This man has devoted his website to the "Lies of George Bush". Kind of the pot calling the kettle...
"Don't place too much confidence in the man who boasts of being as honest as the day is long. Wait until you meet him at night." Robert Edwards
P.S. Of course if this blogger visits this post, two days later with hard thinking he will wrap himself in nuance and semantics defending his "honor". As he did in this post. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/08/2006 10:08:00 PM |
|
|
|
| THIS IS INTERESTING |
| Sunday, April 02, 2006 |
| EIB Memory Division: Ted Kennedy "Reformed" Immigration in 1965
RUSH: Let me share with you this story. It's going to shock you. We talk about immigration reform, and the word to focus on here is "reform." There's no such thing as immigration reform. I mean, they sell it that way and they talk about it, but wait 'til you hear this story. Do you have any idea just what we're reforming? Because it's important. Before we can fix a problem we have to see what caused the problem in the first place, and we have to identify the problem, and before we seek a problem solver, we have to find out who helped create the problem and find out if they're still on the job.
First, the problem. The problem is called "Hart-Seller" or the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965. At the signing ceremony of Hart-Seller, President Lyndon Baines Johnson said, "This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives." Well, that's about 41 years ago. We've got a lot of hindsight that we can use. We have learned that this high sounding liberal dream Hart-Seller, 1965, worked out about as well as the war on poverty. In other words, it was a disaster.
Well, LBJ is no longer available to face accountability, but I do know that the man who marshaled the bill through the Senate is still around. The man who marshaled Hart-Seller immigration bill 1965, not only is he still around, he is leading the reform on the reform that he helped reform. We're into our third or fourth incarnation of reform here, and the guy who's working on the third or fourth version was the first guy who got this whole thing started in 1965. Now, before I reveal his name, let me pass on to you some of his quotes in 1965 as he then led the reform we are about to reform. Who do you think it is? Here's what he said. (interruption) Snerdley thinks he knows who it is, and I'm sure many of you think you know who it is.
First, "Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, the bill will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia -- and in the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think."
The reformer then assured the Senate and the country and the media, quote, "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs," and if that weren't enough, the reformer, the man who started this whole thing with Hart-Seller, the Immigration Nationality Services Act of 1965 and who is today leading the charge to reform his own error, to reform his own failure, to reform his own disaster, said, "No immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge." All right, do you think you know who this is?
The reformer who wants to reform that which he reformed is Senator Ted Kennedy. These are the words of Senator Ted Kennedy, 1965, and he today is working on reforming what he reformed, what has been a total disaster. How in the world can we fix it if the same people are involved in fixing it who broke it in the first place? We're not even being honest with ourselves about the failures of our past attempts at reform. I know some of you are surprised that he's been around 40 years, but please, he's been around, and around, and around our necks for 44 years. Ted Kennedy is also the man, as an ancillary little bit of information here, who gave us the health maintenance organization.
It was Ted Kennedy's impetus that created the HMO, and it is now Ted Kennedy who's bashing the hell out of them and saying they're stealing people blind and mistreating customers and patients and so forth. He is the architect of at least two modern disasters, and that's probably barely scratching the surface. All you have to do is listen to his statements from his past records and do the opposite of what he wants to do. Ted Kennedy is a disaster. Ted Kennedy probably doesn't remember everything he said back in 1965 about the Hart-Seller bill, but it promised us then exactly what we're being promised now, and it was an utter disaster, and we tried it again, 20 years later, we had to go back and fix it. Hello, 1986, and it was Simpson-Mazzoli.
This immigration business seems to run in 20-year cycles. Now, here's the reality check. You heard the quotes from Senator Kennedy. Nothing bad's going to happen. We're not going to be flooded. We're not going to have these people become public charges, meaning welfare recipients. It's not going to happen. "Political refugees--" and this is the Center for Immigration Studies, their website. This was back in September 1995. This is ten-year-old stuff. You know it's even more profound now. "Political refugees qualify for public assistance upon setting foot on US soil.
"The exploding Somali refugee population of Lewiston, Maine, (pop. 36,000) is largely welfare-dependent. Likewise, 2,900 of Wausau, Wisconsin's 4,200 Hmong refugees receive public assistance. In all, 21 percent of immigrants receive public assistance, whereas 14 percent of natives do so. Immigrants are 50 percent more likely than natives to live in poverty." This was exactly what Senator Kennedy 40 years ago assured us would not happen. So Senator Kennedy and the Democrats want to pander. Well, then it's time to get both feet in the water on this immigration vote scam and be honest.
To demonstrate their compassion and their sympathy for the millions of potential new voteritos, Democrats ought to propose legislation granting illegal aliens the benefits of affirmative action. If they're gonna call this the modern civil rights movement, then let's take it right where we know it's going to go right off the bat. Affirmative action. Contractors employing more than 50% illegal aliens will get preferential treatment for minority contracts. Illegals applying to colleges get equal status with African-Americans. In fact, no, they get bumped ahead of everybody, and to really sew up the vote, new union job openings will go to illegal aliens.
They are the most depressed, oppressed, the people with the toughest row to hoe. This, my friends, is the only fair way of dealing with this never-ending discrimination. If these underappreciated and undervalued, well-meaning criminals really are the backbone of our country, if they really do represent like Ted Kennedy thinks and some of the other people on this, what is great about this country, then it's high time the Democrats, the wisest and kindest people in our planet, took the bull by the horns and did the right thing. Ted Kennedy says the immigrants today are part of a great and noble movement, like the civil rights movement of the sixties.
Well, if that's true, and if Kennedy is not just pandering, and he isn't just treating his new amigos like idiots and let's give these ne'er-do-wells a helping hand, we've got to boost them up. They can't get ahead on their own. It's too much discrimination. You can hear it out there all over the country, racism and sexism and bigotry and xenophobia, all is being directed at the backbone of America. And we in America have learned how Democrats deal with this. It's affirmative action. It's time to give them a liberal helping hand. Let's help them achieve what they can't achieve on their own.
Let's take care of them like helpless children and get them first in line. Affirmative action or give me death. Then give them something else to protest, too. We'll have an argument about it 'til they start demanding affirmative action as they fly the Mexican flag up there. I'm going to wait for Senator Kennedy here to be consistent, and the rest of the liberals to be consistent. If this is the modern civil rights movement, and we know what that means, then it's time for affirmative action for illegals and especially, not just affirmative action, it's time for comparable worth. The fact that they're being paid peanuts is insulting. |
| posted by Jack Mercer @ 4/02/2006 05:28:00 PM |
|
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
