...when Democrats are willing to throw the 'chick' under the bus for the 'black guy.'
Thursday, April 24, 2008
We've Reached Gender Parity
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Baghdad Time
VICTORIA TAFT
Links
- Victoria Taft Will Speak Before Your Group! Contact her at victoria@victoriataft.com
- Victoria's Favorite Shoes, Oregon Home Grown Oh!Shoes
- Victoria's Favorite Day Spa: The Waldorf Center
- Victoria's Dentist: Dr. Laura Matin
- Victoria's Jeweler: Judith Arnell
- Victoria's Environmental Air Quality, Air Conditioning and Heating Specialists! Her Guys at AAA Heating and Cooling
- Victoria's Favorite Restaurant Selection Ciao Vito's
- Oregon's Conservative Majority Project
- The Portland Motor Vehicle Alliance!
- CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS HERE
- IRAQ WAR MYTHS
- LEXIS-NEXIS
- Buy Your AWESOME NEW OREGON FLAG Paraphenalia here
- Ted Knew
- Debunking Portland
- Victoria Taft's TransFat Offset Business
- When Will Bill Bradbury Leave? The Watch has Started
- The Oregon Catalyst
- Oregon Watchdog
- Orbusmax
- Junk Science
- Multnomah County Republican Party
- Sound Politics
- Oregonians for Immigration Reform
- Numbers USA
- Daniel is Right
- Allen of Salem
- Northwest Republican
- Rob Kremer
- Rino Watch
- Drudgereport
- Michelle Malkin
- Politico
- Freedom Works Oregon
- Cascade Policy Institute A Free Market Think Tank in Portland
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation of Washington State
- War Footing: Ten Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World
- Michael Tanji
- Thomas Joscelyn
- American Congress for Truth
- US Central Command
- Blogs of War
- AMERICA SUPPORTS TROOPS
- Democracy in Iraq
- Global Terrorism Map
- US Government Spending
- Walter Reed Blog
- <$BlogPreviousItemTitle$>
17 comments:
It really goes without saying that we voters don't really have a good choice of candidates coming up in November. It also goes without saying that Obama would be the absolute worst possible choice of the three.
Obama, IF he does make it to the White House, would surpass Jimmy Carter as the worst president in history, even surpassing Woodrow Wilson. He will make Carter look like the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. IF Obama gets in, I predict that there will be lots of calls for his impeachment within two years of his first term. And rightfully so. He will be the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century.
ScottieBill -
Keep in mind that you have more choices than the 3 empty suits that the liberal media (KPAM included) whats you to believe.
Ron Paul raked in 130,000 votes from the Pennsylvania primary. Contrary to what the liberal media reports, Dr. Ron Paul is still actively campaigning.
Look at his congressional record...
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
You cant rely on the mainstream media any longer. This is where I come in.
Yes, Ron Paul has superior domestic policy ideas and ludicriously inferior foreign policy ideas. Better to be mildly good at both than great in one and horrible in the other.
Keith Moore -
I disagree with you statement.
Please explain how a non interventionist foreign policy is to be considered "ludicriously inferior".
Mayhap you should reread the constitution. Here, I will assist.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Constitution.html
It's inferior because it goes beyond mere noninterventionalism which, by the way, is a very good foreign policy, albeit one that everyone only understands as "isolationism" (which term was invented in the 20 century as a bludgeon against noninterventionalists, if I recall). Ever the most ardent noninterventionalists like Patrick J. Buchanan don't advocate abruptly turning around and running away if we're already engaged in some conflict or another. If you haven't, I reccommend reading "A Republic Not an Empire" by Mr. Buchanan... he offers some really thought-provoking concepts even if I think his analysis of possible future disasters is ridiculously pessimistic. At any rate, there's a big difference between a "pulling in our tripwires and having total freedom to bring our almighty hammer against a real enemy" and "run away, run away." At least Mr. Paul has really brilliant domestic policy ideas.
Todash19, perhaps you ought to read it yourself. The Constitution, in no way, addresses interventionalist or noninterventionalist foreign policy. It designates the president as the commander in chief after war is declared, gives the House the power of the purse, and gives Congress the sole right to declare war. Not a single jot or tittle of the Constitution talks about interventionalism or otherwise. I'm sorry; you fail.
Mr. Moore -
Thanks for your reply. When i am done with my current reading assignment, I will pick up your suggestion.
you said:
"...and gives Congress the sole right to declare war".
It is interesting you brought that up. That is one thing we did NOT have when we invaded Iraq. Thats makes the current was Illegal in the eyes of the constitution (which , thanks to my pocket constitution, I read weekly). I am proud of the constitution, and our founding fathers for drafting it.
Your statement sounds a little like McCain, saying "We cannot leave until we win."
I dont see it as a "Win". The longer we stay there, the resentment towards the US will build. I dont think we should pull out on day 1, but we need the Iraqi government to start owning the process. Compare it to welfare in the US. Who wants to to work when they get a check in the mail? They have no motivation own any of it. Just place blame on the US for invading illegally.
Ronny Paul: Oh Please, the topic my fellow Bloggers is how the Liberal Socialist Media is willing and eager to throw Billary Klinton under the Bus
in favor of Barrack Hussein Obama. Billary has even been going to FOX NEWS lately for interviews. Who knows maybe Billary will call into Rush Limbaugh's radio show or maybe Victoria Taft's KPAM 860 5:00PM-8:00PM M-F 1-877-774-KPAM or maybe Mark Levin just to get her message out. Now Billary knows what practically all Republicans have to deal with every election cycle to get there message out from the Socialist Liberal Media.
PS: Keith Moore said: Yes, Ron Paul has superior domestic policy ideas
Klatu Said: Keith it figures that Ronny Paul would Fascinate you.
You remind me so much of another Blogger here named "CNSKATE" who was all over the Map but pretended to be Conservative, who disappeared from this blog in early February and you appeared around March 10.
Interesting Keith's a Ronny Paul and an IKNOWHOWTOSPELL supporter. But I thought you liked Obama Keith.
PPS: I hope Victoria continues to ignore Ronny Paul Posts and Emails.
I know that argument, Todash 19, and I agree with it. In direct violation of the Constitution, Congress gave the Executive branch power to declare war without officially doing so. It's a travesty but you and I both know that even the most honest legal minds on the Federal Supreme Court are unlikely to slap Congress' violation down as blatently and proudly unconstitional. It's highly unfortunate, I agree.
Well, sir, it all depends upon your definition of "win". You define winning as a gradual and rational transfer of the fighting burden onto the shoulders of the Iraqi government until the last American soldier is kicking back on American soil. I happen to define winning in the same way. It appears that you and I are, after all, in agreement on this issue. Perhaps I misunderstood the exact nature of Ron Paul's viewpoint on the matter. If so, I'm sorry.
If you have a blog or feel inclined to discuss the intricacies of noninterventionalism further (or further enlighten me on Ron Paul's foreign policy philosophies), please say so. We can exchange emails or whatever.
todash19: You surely know that Ron Paul has as much chance of getting elected to the White House as a snowball has a chance in hell.
Klatu and Kieth Moore have really said it a lot better than I could.
Paul has great domestic ideas, but lousy foreign policy ideas.
And, again, his being elected just flat ain't gonna happen.
Scottiebill -
It's really easy to parrot Keith, which is EXACTLY what you you did.
Nice job, shows you can really think for yourself.
While his chances of winning are slim to none, he will still have an enormous impact at the national convention. I will vote for him. In Novemeber, I will write him in. When you call complain about how the liberals (McCain included)are ocntinuiing to destroy our nation, I will have a clear concience, unlike you, who just went along with all the other sheeple.
And thanks to "personalities" like Victoria, his message (compared to the Elite 3)has been stymied.
And why? Because the liberal, corporate owned media would not benefit from RP's policies.
I came here to find Victoria's stance on Ron Paul and why she refuses to answer the question. She wont return the emails i have sent, which i thought were flattering to her and her show.
http://todash19.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/media-caught-lying-version2/
I think you might garner more respect if you could form your own opinion and not just parrot what the most popular phrase of the day is.
You don't have to like Ron Paul. You don't have to agree with any of his stances. But Victoria and others like her (Rush) are doing a disservice to republicans and the nation by refusing to educate their listeners on the options available.
Just answer the question Victoria. Why the silent treatment?
Did you make a deal with someone?
ScottieBill -
Educate.Nominate.Decimate.
http://tinyurl.com/52ebpn
Aww, c'mon, Todash... give me a little credit for apologizing if I misinterpreted Mr. Paul's positions.
As an FYI, I'm approaching the point where I might do the same thing you're doing just out of exasperation. In no way is McCain conservative and he's almost as much a Democrat as Hillary and Obama. I'm just helplessly addicted to the concept of voting for someone who I believe is capable of winning rather than throwing out a symbolic protest vote.
I have a minor problem, however, with your characterization of Rush Limbaugh and others as somehow shutting Ron Paul out of the picture. You're well aware of the fact, Todash, that Ron Paul won't be nominated and cannot be elected. If you have 3 hours a day to deal with the political issues of the moment, is it a more efficient use of your time to deal with the Elite 3, one of which will become president, or take the time to hold forum on a candidate who won't be a part of the electoral process this year? Your complaint is roughly equivalent to Lyndon LaRouche supporters accusing the media of shutting him out of the debate: he isn't relevant to the matter at hand. It's not that Rush and others thing Ron Paul is stupid or something... they just recognize that he's an "also ran" that will be forgotten in the larger political world the moment the presidential campaign has concluded. Under those circumstances, wouldn't you use your time in a way that would make a difference?
Keith -
Here is a link to google trends, highlighting search requests for Lyndon LaRouche, Ron Paul, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama.
http://tinyurl.com/4t2dze
Better yet, on this graph look at the top searches, the elite 3 boom up almost to Ron Paul, but on the bottom frame, he actually goes down in news coverage while everyone else goes up.
Watch this video...
http://tinyurl.com/52ebpn
The reason he is seen as not standing a chance is because of this media blackout. Ron Paul does not pander to special interest groups, which the corporate media is a part of.
The Pensyclvania primary is a good example of conservitives not accepting McCain as their party's candidate. If we had another year of the Ron Paul blackout before the convention, I am confident he would be the nominee. But I still, DAILY, here people ask me, "Who is Ron Paul"?
Ron Paul supporters have for the most part, accepted the inevitable. But they are in no way going to lie down and vote for McCain.
Keep watching the news. Ron Paul will be in it alot in the coming months, as more and more state delegates start voting for RP.
Yes, I saw the video... it proves merely that people were curious about him but are steadily caring less and less. If the media was failing to inform about Ron Paul, you'd expect that curiousity about him (reflected by searches) would go up as people seek other avenues to get information. Curiously, this isn't the case which seems to prove that the desire for information on the gentleman is waning. I'm sorry but the liklihood of state delegates voting for Paul over some other more popular candidate (Huckabee, Romney) seems quite small.
And I noticed that you didn't reply to my previous pleasant message directed at you. What, only my adversarial messages are worth replying to? :P
Keith -
I went ahead and updated the blog post with the video. I also posted the screengrab of what you said Mr. Day did nt do, and that add all candidates.
Here is the text. you can go here to see the screengrab...
http://tinyurl.com/45d28g
"Keith, please see the graph below that illustrates what the video was trying to say, as I think you may have misunderstood the message. As you can see in the search volume, Ron Paul is leading the way as they all go up on volume together. But for that same time period, as his search popularity goes up along with the others, the NEWS REFERENCE VOLUME clearly indicates a decline in news coverage, while the others get plenty. This is what Mr. Day was referring to. If his popularity goes up above all others, then one would think the media would catch on that and would be reflected in the matrix. But it isnt. That leaves 2 suggestions…
1) The media is intentionally ignoring Dr. Paul.
2) The media is out of touch with the american people so much so that they cant see whats right in front of them.
I believe its a little from column A, and a little from Column B."
As for the adversarial questions, i thought I accepted your apology. If not, i do. What was directed at bill is still a fact. He is just repeating what you said, showing the laziness of his post.
As for the delegates. With all due respect, what you think delegates will do, and what they actually WILL do are 2 things that are not exclusive. I myself was a county delegate and as an RP support, we sent almost all delegates to state as RP supporters. Spokane County did the same, with even higher numbers.
Do a google news search, on RP (the only stories out there right now). You will see that it is the Ron Paul supports who recognize that the "Party of Lincoln" has been hijacked by the neo-cons, and realize that the only way to effect change and get the party back to it's core beliefs is to become involved. If Ron Paul wins or not, you will still see major changes coming to the GOP on a nationwide scale.
Keith, I respect you and your opinion. I will not attack you for disagreeing. I believe we are well met, if with differing opinions. If you think otherwise, I cry your pardon!
How do you get the extra data to show up, out of curiousity? I can't get it to label peak trends or compare the search term hits to media coverage.
So... we're both right. Delegates won't vote for Ron Paul and delegates will vote for Ron Paul. They sound mutually exclusive to me but maybe you see something different there... (assuming by "not exclusive" you meant that they're not mutually exclusive).
One day, I'll get someone to define what a "neo-con" is beyond some odd term people like to throw around. No one ever bothers to say what defines the neoconservative position... they just call people neo-cons and amazingly, most of the administration officials that get called "neo-con" are Jewish. It almost makes me suspect a correlation although I refuse to believe that someone who seems to be mature and intellectually honest (like you) would intentionally use it as a clever way to say "the Jews" without actually saying it.
Offer to exchange emails still open.
By the by, the reason I thought you didn't notice the apology was that you made no response to the post in which I apologized and such. I can't see you nodding, remember... and I'm not psychic (otherwise I wouldn't have to do chore at home).
Post a Comment