Posts filed under 'Politics'
Voces de la Frontera is planning to picket a company that had the nerve to fire people for not coming to work. (The “workers” chose to attend the “Day with Latinos” protest events instead.)
Voces claims firing them is a violation of their First Amendment right to free speech.
News flash: the First Amendment protects the right to speak. It does not protect a theoretical right to speak without consequences.
If you want to come to America, viagra buy pharm you’ve got to live by our rules. (I know that seems hard to believe because Voces contends everybody should be able to come live here regardless of the rules.) If you don’t come to work when you’re supposed to you can be fired.
If Voces is looking for a country where you can’t be fired no matter how you behave, discount viagra ed they should consider relocating to France.
(With a tip of the hat to Wendy at Boots and Sabers)
April 12th, 2006
In a transparent effort to jumpstart the back-alley abortion scare mongering, viagra canada sildenafil the New York Times sent a reporter to El Savador to do a story highlighting how horrible life is in a country where abortion is illegal.
The goal of this story is to promote unfettered access to abortion. So the writer never bothers to point out that unwanted pregnancies could be resolved through adoption. Or avoided all together by not indulging in sex when you don’t want a child.
It’s so much simpler to advocate irresponsibility and infanticide.
April 11th, 2006
Conservatives hate out-of-control government spending.
Liberals hate out-of-control CEO pay.
But the funny thing is both issues have the SAME cause.
Government spending keeps going up because it doesn’t come out of the pockets of the politicians who vote for it.
And CEO pay keeps going up because it doesn’t come out of the pockets of the corporate board members who vote for it.
The old saying has never been truer:
It’s much easier to spend other people’s money.
It’s not the spending that’s out of control, discount cialis purchase it’s the spenders.
April 10th, 2006
Why is the Left in favor of letting people vote directly for things that don’t matter:
Non-binding advisory referendums on the war in Iraq
But dismayed by the possibility of them voting directly for things that actually do?
Wisconsin’s Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment
I changed the headline of this post to more accurately reflect what I meant when I wrote it.
April 6th, 2006
I was listening to a story on NPR the other day about ourtenwords.com.
Ourtenwords.com is a web site that is soliciting Democrats for ten words that “can define the Democratic Party’s message.”
I was less surprised that the Democrats NEEDED a web site to figure out what they stood for…
…than I was shocked by the fact that the web site founder’s own ten words included “personal responsibility.”
I actually laughed out loud in my car.
I can’t think of two words LESS related to the Democratic Party.
Democrats blame everybody and everything in the universe for people’s bad behaviors EXCEPT for the person who actually commits the crime, viagra buy health or is addicted to drugs, cialis or gets pregnant, buy viagra or sneaks into the country illegally.
I really am amazed.
How could ANYONE actually use the words “personal responsibility” to describe the philosophy of the Democratic Party?
The Party of Group Entitlement?
Sure.
The Party of Collective Bargaining?
Without a doubt.
The Party of Personal Responsibility?
Don’t make me laugh. (Again.)
What really brought this into focus for me was a call-in program I heard this morning on WPR about the Duke lacrosse players who allegedly raped a black stripper at an off-campus party.
The callers all had something they wanted to blame for this hideous crime:
• Racism.
• Sexism.
• Class privilege.
• White privilege.
‚Ä¢ The players’ parents.
‚Ä¢ The players’ coach.
• The sense of entitlement engendered by being a college athlete.
‚Ä¢ Etc…Etc…Etc…
Can you guess how many of the callers wanted to hold the players who may have committed the crime “personally responsible?”
Not ONE.
Zero.
Zilch.
And at the risk of being offensive to my two left-leaning readers…that’s what I sometimes think the Democratic Party really stands for.
Nada.
Naught.
Nothing.
Don’t get me wrong. There are some very important and valuable ideals that many individual Democrats believe in, but lately ‚Äì as a party ‚Äì the Democrats seem to be standing against lots of things and standing for very little.
April 6th, 2006
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney slapped a Capitol Police officer who didn’t recognize her as she tried to pass a security checkpoint at a House office building without stopping.
When asked if her new hair style might have been the reason the officer failed to recognize her, generic cialis and she said:
“If the security of the House of Representatives of the United States is based on how members of Congress wear their hair … I think this is really ridiculous.”
No ma’am. The security of the House of Representatives depends on the vigilance of the law enforcement officers (as was evidenced here) and the gracious cooperation of congresspeople and their staffs (which Ms. McKinney did not display at all).
Congresswoman McKinney wants to make this an issue of racial profiling and respect.
It has nothing to do with racial profiling (if she was an Arab-American I might think she had a point, there but she’s not and she doesn’t.)
But it is an issue of respect.
The issue is she didn’t respect the people who are charged with protecting her life.
And once again, we play political/racial games with matters of life and death.
April 4th, 2006
Which do you think frightens a suicide terrorist more?
Death and a free ticket to a heaven he thinks is filled with pliant virgins?
Or dying of old age after 60 shame-filled years in an American prison?
In this case, buy cialis order the death penalty is the lesser punishment.
April 4th, 2006
Warrentless wiretapping – a questionably legal/illegal act aimed at protecting the United States from being attacked by terrorists.
Watergate – an unquestionably illegal act selfishly aimed at getting a president re-elected.
March 31st, 2006
I have a modest little suggestion that I think both liberals and conservatives will love.
Let’s just annex every inch of territory from here to the Panama Canal.
Liberals will love it because all the “undocumented immigrants” in the U.S. will instantly become full citizens (not to mention all their friends and relatives back home).
Conservatives will love it because…well, discount viagra viagra sale hell…we’re an empire aren’t we? What’s an empire without an occasional conquest?
(By the way, Canada’s invited to join up, too.*)
*Offer not valid in Quebec.
March 30th, 2006
On NPR this morning, viagra sale mind I heard self-described “freelance left-wing missionary” Annie Lamott say, viagra “we all know what fair means.”
And I thought, “sure we do. It just means different things to different people.”
For example:
TOPIC: Amnesty for illegal aliens/undocumented immigrants
LIBERAL FAIR: They’re human beings. They should be treated like everyone else.
CONSERVATIVE FAIR: Why should they be rewarded for breaking the law? And it doesn’t seem fair to the people who try to legally immigrate.
TOPIC: Abortion
LIBERAL FAIR: A woman shouldn’t have to pay for her whole life for one little mistake.
CONSERVATIVE FAIR: A baby shouldn’t have to pay with its life for one little mistake.
TOPIC: Affirmative Action
LIBERAL FAIR: We need to compensate blacks for being treated unfairly because of their color in the past.
CONSERVATIVE FAIR: No one should be treated unfairly because of their color in the present.
I believe everyone in America wants fairness.
And I believe absolutely none of us agree on what that means.
March 30th, 2006
Newer Posts
Older Posts