Lost Localhost


It seems like most of the political things I'm annoyed with and write about are the same things that others write about. (1|2) My quick posts are just less refined so take less time, hence why it's usually here before on the news or official opinion places.

If I made my writings and opinions based on other people opinions I would feel pretty much like a sheep. With that said, Mr.Gibby (Robert Gibbs, that is) is speaking so time to pay attention for myself!

Well the next big deal is going to be the cockiness of this A-hole. Don't misunderstand me... if he was providing true change and bringing together the country and congress I feel he would be justified in making an off-the-cuff comment like he did. But what collaboration has he shown? What issues has he helped mend between liberals and conservatives? in Gibby's breifing today he even discussed how divided the country is despite the president vowing to fix that.

Hello? Leg store? yes, I need something for the Big O to stand on...


In an interview to ABCs George Stephanpoulos the big O had one specific thing to say about the Scott Brown win that irked me...

"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office [...] People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."
-President Obama Says Voter Anger, Frustration Key to Republican Victory in Massachusetts Senate

Huh? So let me get this straight. People are so pissed at the Bush administration that they voted in a republican who is against most of the big O's beliefs? How delusional is that? THIS IS OUR PRESIDENT? I bet if Coakley was elected he would have said the same exact words. Reread them replacing Browns name with Coakley and see how they can be interchanged. It happens all the time.

My next big gripe with this is that in at least two of his speeches I've specifically heard him say something along the lines of "We need to stop blaming other people for our problems and take responsibility". Yet I've lost count of how many times he has blamed the Bush administration for his bad decisions. Yes, you inherited a crappy economy, but guess what: YOURE BAD DECISIONS ARE MAKING IT WORSE, NOT BETTER!

To quote a great man... "Oh you are nuts. N-V-T-S - nuts!"

Proof of lies...

The heritage foundation has a pretty good article on many of the Big O's promises versus reality. The topics include the individual mandate, not losing your doctor, lower healthcare premiums, a reduced deficit, and tax payer funded abortions. The one that makes me most upset (if I HAD to choose one) would be the lie stating no family making less than $250,000 would see a dime in tax increases. Primarily because it was a huge promise, affects everyone poor or middleclass, and also essentially means he was going to reduce spending. They get around this wording by taxing employers and thinking it won't trickle down to individuals.

No Tax Hikes for People Making Less than $250,000: On February 24, 2009, President Barack Obama promised the American people: “if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” Speaker Pelosi believes the Senate bill’s excise tax on insurance plans breaks this promise, and she is right. But it is not the only way that Obamacare shatters the President’s no-middle-class-tax-hike pledge. There are a slew of new taxes in the Senate bill, many of which will hit the middle class, including taxes on medical devices, tanning beds, insurance user fees, and brand name drugs (not to mention the individual mandate which is enforced by a tax or the employer mandate which kills jobs and punishes the poor).
-Obama’s Other Broken Health Care Promises

As I hope you know, currently democrats from both the House and Senate are deliberating and trying to create a bill that THEY can all agree on to send to the Big O. Oh yeah, and they're hiding while doing it.

Remember all that? Even Pelosi did.

Of course in nearly the same breath as saying that, she says "There has never been a more open process".

How can you deal with people who refuse to answer questions and live in reality? It reminds me of a T-Shirt slogan I've seen sported by Mythbuster Adam Savage: "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

Kick these people out of office: all of them. *facepalm*

Wealth, Google, and a common sense description of corporate competition...

Why is wealth such a bad thing? It seem you are only allowed to want wealth in this nation, but you are not socially allowed to actually acheive it. I still struggle to see what the inherrant problem is with American companies in large scale operations. I'm talking about American oil, insurance, energy, technology, health, and auto companies... The people who complain about these huge industries don't realize that they are AMERICAN! Isn't having a strong AMERICAN company a good thing in this global market? Isn't it a great thing to have a company be able to employ a large amount of AMERICAN workers? Isn't it helpful to the rest of AMERICA to have the taxes that these AMERICAN companies provide? Why drive them away with political and social pressure, regulations, and lack of incetives?

Wealth is not a bad thing - sometimes companies do bad things with it though. Those actions, when left to public opposision will cease. Instead of bailing out a company who fails, you should let them fail, rebuild without the wastefulness that cause their downfalls, and let them be wealthy again. Bad actions are bad - but American wealth is great. People do not seem to separate the two.

Wealth breeds innovation. A great case for that is Google. In it's most recent push, it is getting into the wireless phone hardware industry. Hypothetically speaking, what happens if Google takes over the cell phone market by introducing free/cheap ad-based cell service using VOIP technology(GoogleVoice?) on a Google created, HTC manufactured handset? First of all, everyone would freak out. Customers would shop around for the best deal. Advertisers would participate in an instant. ATT, Verizon, and Sprint would lose such a large base they would have to lower fees to gain or retain customers. This means better devices, new technology, lower fees, and more revenue for the companies responsible and thier employees. GOOD-FOR-THEM! Yes, the other cell carriers may lose some because of this, but that means they will have to compete and come up with either something better or cheaper. This means more innovation, more advances, and cheaper services and good for the end consumer. BTW, unless this Jan 5th announcement is game-changing and will result in more wireless freedom, lower costs, or a huge jump in innovation - I think whatever it is could be a flop, or at least highly over-hyped.