About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Ray's Shorts 1/8/08

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 12:36:37 PM
RAY'S SHORTS: Copyright © 2008 by Ray Thomas. These are items of OPINION, for which I often don't have URLs to use for documentation and which are usually too short to be a headlined item. When I can, I'll include any URLs I have, or give you an idea where to look.  . . . WHO ARE "THE RICH?" The liberals (mostly Democrats) are always talking about "taxing the rich." But who ARE "the rich" they're talking about? Certainly not the "coupon clippers" like Teddy Kennedy or most of the other liberals who don't make a lot of money in SALARY, but who make a lot of money in DIVIDENDS, which are taxed a little differently than INCOME. They exempt these people and lay high taxes on people who EARN their riches with their original IDEAS and hard WORK. Take a REAL look at those who want to "tax the rich" and you'll find "rich people" who don't want you to know about their riches, and make sure to exempt themselves from those taxes.  . . .  HILLARY THINKS SHE'S ALREADY BEEN PRESIDENT: In a "sound byte" about what a governor is going to do about driver's licenses for illegal aliens, she says she's going to "do something as president. AGAIN." AGAIN! Which just shows that Bill was never anything but a "front man" for HER first presidency.. . . . "HER TURN?" Seems that "it's her turn" or "she earned it" is not a good reason to elect someone president. Doonesbury (who is well-known for being wrong almost all the time on politics) says, on Oct. 31, that Hillary "has earned it." Has she? Show me one thing she's ever done to "earn" the presidency. The Republicans ran Dole recently because "it was his turn" and you know how THAT turned out. I certainly hope if they run Hillary "because she earned it," it turns out the same way. . . . "SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES: sounds good, doesn't it? Unfortunately, those who "beat their swords into plowshares" will end up pushing a plow at the orders of those who still have swords (Mike Rosen). . . . "I HAVE PEOPLE FOR THAT": I thought it was so elitist for a  female rock star to tell the judge she didn't read the order suspending her driver's license because "I have people for that." Like that was a good excuse. But now Hillary Clinton is using the same excuse when she was criticized for "stiffing" a waitress while stealing her story with which to make political hay. Such a comment is always a sign of someone who feels he/she is "above" the "little people" she claims to serve. . . . DECLINE IN MFG. JOBS: This is not necessarily a "bad thing." It merely reflects the increased PRODUCTIVITY in manufacturing, and that's a good thing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Inevitable" No More

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, January 06, 2008 4:38:13 PM
Until the Iowa debacle (for Hillary), pundits were painting Hillary Clinton as "the inevitable Democrat candidate" for president. But Obama proved that assumption very wrong. I'll bet there was a "rain" of ash trays and lamps in their campaign office after Iowa and we'll probably hear about a few staffers "stepping down" (Meaning they were fired). As this is written, he has a "two-digit" lead over her in New Hampshire, even though those self-same pundits have been trying to minimize her third-place loss in Iowa by saying "That's okay. We'll win in New Hampshire. If she loses in NH, what are they going to say to "resurrect" her candidacy? I don't believe she's electable in a general election anyway. But I'd just as soon not allow her to even get one step nearer the presidency with her predilection for collectivism (socialism). Remember Evita Peron? Gawd, I get so tired of this "election nonsense!" I'll be so glad when it's over, no matter who wins. (Time, 1/5/08)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

This Speaks Volumes

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, January 06, 2008 4:16:02 PM
An Ayn Rand critic was publishing comments from other Rand critics and came up with this one: "Another philosophy professor, this one disliking Rand and disagreeing with Objectivism, recalled after an all-night discussion with the philosopher-novelist: 'She's found gaping holes in every philosophical position I've maintained for the whole of my life--positions I teach my students, positions on which I'm a recognized authority--and I can't answer her arguments! I don't know what to do!' (p. 247)." This tells me a lot about the criticisms he presented. Yes, Rand was "flawed." Yes, her "dictums" are not  "the end-all and be-all." They can be wrong in some instances, and those who believe otherwise may be cultists, but all people who practice objective philosophy are not cultists. Note that I said "objective" philosophy, not "Objectivist" philosophy. I am one of those who disagree with some of her pronouncements, but yet remain an objective philosopher, adhering to some of them. It is only those who are cultists who would disagree with me.  (Michael Schermer)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stupid, But Funny

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:02:24 PM
Cartoonist Ed Stein, who does an editorial cartoon for the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, is stupid politically. But that's the very thing that makes his daily comic strip (which is also very political) so funny that I wouldn't miss it. Last Saturday's strip suggested that there were going to be more "warm days," so he's going to resolve to play more golf. Warm days? In January in Denver? Jeeze! What a load that is! I haven't seen a "warm day" since before December began, and I don't expect to see one for a long time. But Stein has a vivid imagination, which is necessary for a liberal cartoonist these days. "Warm days" in January! Sheesh! It's obvious he's "bought" AlGore's swindle, swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, in spite of obvious evidence that it's wrong. Even while he's bundling up to go outside, he talks about "more warm days." What stupidity! (Denver Square12/29/07)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'm Running for President!

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:06:38 PM
It had to happen. I've always thought someone who doesn't want the job, or who doesn't care if he gets it or not would make the best candidate. Unfortunately, that describes me completely. Do I think I could ever be elected? No. Do I want the job? No. Would I refuse to take the job if elected? No, because it would be my best chance to "make things right." But it is not of sufficient importance to me to worry about it, or to go out and make speeches and shake thousands of hands to make it happen. I've always thought the problem with politics is that you might be an honest man when you start, but in most cases, you have to become a crook to get the office. The one glaring exception I've seen to that rule is Ronald Reagan. I fervently wish he were still alive and in full command of his faculties. (Ray Thomas 101)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

(David) Limbaugh Likes Fred Thompson

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, January 03, 2008 3:18:29 PM
So do I, for many of the same reasons. "I must confess that Fred is the only one I don't have major reservations about -- apart from his electability. Yes, I worry that he supported McCain-Feingold and that he might not be a strong supply-sider. But on most issues, he seems reliably conservative and appears to have a solid and strong character. I do believe that with Fred, we know what we are getting." His support of McClain-Feingold though, disturbs me a lot more than it does Limbaugh, mostly because support for this measure reveals a disdain for freedom of speech (whether or not he realizes it). That, and his not being a "supply-sider" does not eliminate him in my mind, in comparison to his conservative views. The one thing that makes me think he's the most viable candidate on the Republican side, however, is his "lack of fire in the belly" for the job. I've always thought the best candidate for any political office is someone who either doesn't want he job, or who doesn't care whether he gets it or not. But that's not the way it works. He has to let us know he's willing to do the job if he's elected, and that means he wants the job. So there again I agree with Limbaugh that he needs to "get serious" about letting us know he's interested in the job, even if he's not greatly excited about it. (David Limbaugh, 1/2/08)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Is "Change?"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, January 02, 2008 5:29:48 PM
Every Democrat claims he (or she) is "the agent of change." But what does that mean? None of them seem able, or willing, to define just what "change" means to him (her). They think you'll think they mean "a change" from what you got with Bush, but that's not what any of them mean. "Change," to a Democrat, is more movement toward socialism (where is it okay to steal from those who earn, to give to those who don't.) How is this better than what we've gotten from Bush? I have my own problems with Bush, but for the most part, he's done okay. He's the only politician who seems to recognize the deadly danger we're in from Islamic terrorists and is willing to do what is necessary to stop them, or at least keep them busy so they won't be able to come here and make a "Baghdad" out of New York City. Hopefully, he'll at least be able to put the mechanism in place to keep their violence "over there" before he leaves. The Democrats certainly won't. Have you heard what all of them say about "the war in Iraq?" They want us to "cut & run" and leave the Iraqis to their own deaths while clearing a path for Islamic terrorists to easily come here. He lowered the tax rate and the economy responded, becoming the best economy we've had since Ronald Reagan did the same thing (Of course, the Democrats deny that). Frankly, on the Republican side, all I see is more of the same, with the possible exception of Fred Thompson, who has a long way to go to win the nomination. Ron Paul is way far back in the race. If anybody out there can tell me what the Democrats really mean by "change," I sure wish you'd tell me. (IIE)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Learning Lessons

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:39:00 PM
"Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our armed forces -- with the unbounded determination of our people -- we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God." This is a quote from a president. But not one from our current president about the war on terror. It's from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, about World War II. And If we don't learn the lesson of Pearl Harbor or 9/11, there will be more attacks on our own soil by these murderous extremists who want to kill ALL who do not believe the way they do. As Chuck Norris says, it doesn't matter if we stay or go from Iraq, they'll still be attacking us wherever they can. Our leaving Iraq will not stop them from killing people there. It will only increase it, and take pressure off them so they can come here and kill unsuspecting innocent people the way they do in Israel. Chuck Norris is not like most "Hollywood types" who spout liberal nonsense. He knows what's going on and is not afraid to say it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Slippery Deal

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:15:52 PM
"New Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bought undeveloped land in Arizona far below its assessed value, then introduced legislation that could have aided the seller of the property. Revelations about the land deal follow last year's reports that Reid, a Nevada Democrat, had collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years. In the newly disclosed land deal -- uncovered during an investigation by the Los Angeles Times -- Reid paid $10,000 to gain control of a 160-acre parcel in Bullhead City, Ariz., in 2002. The money was paid to a pension fund controlled by Clair Haycock, a Los Vegas lubricants distributor and Reid's friend for 50 years. The deal gave Reid -- who had already owned a five-eighths interest in the property, equivalent to 120 of the 160 acres -- full control of the parcel." Tell me Reid didn't know he was breaking the law! Will you read about this in New York Times, or any other member of the "mainstream media?" Probably not, and if you do, it will be on page 199, below the fold. This kind of thing usually only gets covered in the "alternative media" such as News Max, World Net Daily, and Fox News, or even this blog. Then they claim it isn't true because it was only covered in the "right-wing media." (Name-calling, again) What I can't understand is who authorized it to be published in the L. A. Times? They must have a non-liberal "mole." He won't last long. (News Max 1/29/07)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Negotiating With the Devil

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:34:28 PM
Every Democrat and some Republican candidates for president are under the delusion that you can "negotiate" with Islamic terrorists. Well, you can't, because all they want is to kill every man, woman, and child in the world who does not believe the way they do. They even have a name for it: "Infidel." They even apply this label to other Muslims who don't believe exactly the way they do, that to kill all Infidels is "Godly." How can you "negotiate" with such people? Give them a number of "Infidels" they can kill? Of course, even if they agree, they'll keep on killing "Infidels" at will, and in numbers they decide. Why people don't understand this, I cannot say. Maybe it's because they want to believe it is possible to "negotiate" with the devil. Michael Hurd says this: "If we negotiate with terrorists, we elevate them to the status of civil people with whom we happen to have some disagreements. This will put us on even more dangerous footing in the long run." Have you ever tried to "negotiate" with an angry grizzly bear that comes upon you in the forest? Probably not, if you're still alive. It's a fact that you can't "negotiate" with such an enemy, and Islamic terrorists fall into the same category. You have to kill them before they can kill you. They aren't interested in any "debate points" you might present, and while you're trying to present them, they'll kill you. They don't hear you when you talk. You're just something to kill, to them. They are the scum of the universe, to be erased before they can erase you. They don't deserve human rights. They certainly won't give you any. They might "offer" to negotiate with you, but that's all part of their scam to keep you off balance so they can kill you. They have no rights, as civilized criminals do. When they're "caught in the act," they need to be killed instantly, not given all the rights of American criminals. Don't take them prisoner, hoping to "educate" them. They're a "lost cause." Kill them. If you leave them alive, they'll ultimately kill more innocent people. Remove them from the land of the living. All those they would have killed would thank you. (Michael J. Hurd)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Snake-Oil Salesman"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:52:22 PM
Where the hell does AlGore get off telling an "eminent climate scientist" that he's "no longer in the mainstream of climate science" because he disagrees with this "snake-oil salesman" who really knows nothing about climate science except that told him by the phony "scientists" who don't know the difference between global warming and global cooling? What happened to their fears about a "new ice age" more than 20 years ago (which didn't happen, by the way)? Frankly, the only thing that keeps me from buying the biggest, safest SUV I can find is reality. The reality of $3.00 plus a gallon gas. And if gas ever goes back down to a decent level compared to the economy, I will buy one. It is a proven fact that those tiny tin boxes Gore wants us to buy will crumple easily in an accident with a bicycle, let alone a real car. I hate to think how many good people have died because of Gore's bull droppings. (Yahoo News, 1/2/08)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

He Has to Be Insane!

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, January 01, 2008 3:57:10 PM
"A Muslim leader has warned that Britain is moving towards a 'police state,' comparing the situation to Nazi Germany after the anti-terror raids in the city of Birmingham after some Islamic raids.. But Mohammad Naseem, chairman of Birmingham's Central Mosque, urged Muslims to show restraint following the raids, in which nine suspects were arrested over allegations of plotting an 'Iraq-style' kidnapping and filmed beheading. 'The country is moving toward a police state. That's not right. We have to change this,' he said inside the mosque, where some 2,000 Muslims gathered for weekly Friday prayers." And what does he think CAUSED Britain to act like a "police state?" It's little things like Muslim CHILDREN carrying around automatic weapons and when asked what they want to do, reply, "Kill Jews." It's things like Islamic terrorists kidnapping people and beheading them before television cameras and showing the beheading to the world. Muslim leaders need to spend more time condemning the actions of the Islamic extremists who have made this "police state" necessary and less time crying about the "police state" their friends have created. Sheesh! (Breitbart)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »