About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

McCain a Conservative? Don't Make Me Laugh!

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, February 10, 2008 2:14:27 PM
I like George Bush and agree with most of his policies. I especially like the fact that he is one of the FEW politicians who even realize the deadly threat Islamic terrorism is to the rest of the world if not checked, and is willing to DO something about it even if to do so makes people hate him. I also like that he believes that lower taxes a better economy make, and he proved it (again). I DO have problems with some of his policies, chiefly those on stem-cell research. But he is NOT a conservative, and I don't think he could recognize one. McCain has done many things to convince us he IS a conservative. He wants us to ignore such things as McCain-Feingold, which unconstitutionally prevents people from saying the truth about an incumbent just before an election (a time that is the only time when MOST of America is "paying attention.") He has sponsored other bills with Democrats, and some have passed, to our detriment. Bush says McCain "has lots of work to do" to convince people he IS a conservative and a lot of it is "personal animosity against me." It is not. It is "animosity" against a Republican who is trying to "have it both ways," running as a conservative while bending to the will of the liberals. Unfortunately, he is still our best choice on the Republican side. There is NO choice on the Democrat side. (Town Hall)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oops! I Really Screwed Up!

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, February 10, 2008 1:53:08 PM
That's what Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, must have said to himself when he saw the reaction to his statement that we should "accept some tenets of Sharia Law." Now he says he only meant such things as the Sharia directions for preparing meat for Muslim consumption. Unfortunately, that wasn't clear  (and probably not true) from his original statement. So naturally, it brought up pictures of the Sharia Law "overriding" British law and British Muslims beheading other Britons. He said that "Christians could not be expected to claim religious exemptions to secular rules -- for example, refusing to carry out abortions -- unless they were willing to accommodate other religious traditions." Unfortunately, abortion is NOT a "religious exemption to secular rules." Abortion is MURDER, plain and simple. Abortion is KILLING a human being, albeit one so young he/she doesn't know he/she is being murdered. We don't NEED to "accommodate Muslim religious practices in the West. We live in CHRISTIAN countries, and Christianity is our religion. Muslims should "respect" OUR "religious tenets" instead of demanding we accommodate theirs. If Muslims (In a Muslim-run country) didn't want to KILL British or American teachers for (such a small thing as) allowing a child to name a Teddy bear "Mohammed," I might listen to their arguments. But until Muslims allow "religious exceptions to secular rules" in countries where THEY run things, I'm not interested. Any religion that allows them to THREATEN death to cartoonists who have the temerity to draw a picture of Mohammed while not even demeaning him has no right to DEMAND "religious exceptions" to "secular rules" in countries not their own. If that makes you think I just plain don't like Muslims, you're welcome to be stupid. It's not Muslims I don't like, it's their religion. I don't like ANY religion that condemns their members to DEATH for changing to another religion. I wouldn't be a Muslim on a bet. I don't need a mullah to tell me how to prepare my meat, or how often to pray and what direction to face when praying, or what to say when I do. (News Max)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On "Being Judgmental"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Saturday, February 09, 2008 2:41:09 PM
The liberals are constantly exhorting us to "not be judgmental" because they don't want us to judge THEM on what they do. It sounds good, but it's impossible. When they demand we "not be judgmental," they are being judgmental of US. Unfortunately for them, it is impossible to LIVE without being judgmental of every person with which we come in contact. We MUST make a judgment about them in order to decide how we are going to react to them. We cannot FUNCTION without being judgmental, not only of people, but also of things and places. Demanding we not be judgmental is simply another scam, this time to keep us from judging their actions on RESULTS, rather than their "intentions." If anybody disagrees with this, please correct me. (Just common sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Power of Repetition

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Saturday, February 09, 2008 2:34:25 PM
There is NO "empirical evidence" that smoking kills 4 million people a year, but the news media continues to tout this number on a regular basis, just as if it were true. They got it originally from the World Health Organization (WHO), which once funded a research project that (surprise, surprise!) found NO CONNECTION between "second-Hand Smoke" and cancer deaths. I've got a copy of the news report about it, but I wasn't quick enough to get a copy of the report itself. They took it down so quickly their site blew away for a few days. Now they continue to run phony story after phony story about how deadly second-hand smoke is, and how many (imaginary) people have died from "smoking-related" illnesses, all based on non-existent, or "ponied-up" research. Does the lack of empirical evidence stop their propaganda campaign against smoking? Not a chance. Facts seem to mean nothing to the "anti-smoking fanatics." They figure if they keep repeating the lie, you'll believe it. And way too many do. At this point, I need to remind you I quit smoking 20 years ago because I saw this craziness coming and I wanted no part of it. Did I have a "hard time" quitting? No. One day, after smoking for 45 years, I just didn't pull out a smoke any more and there was a half-pack in my pocket for several weeks until it finally crumbled away. I said nothing, because I wanted nobody to "help" me quit. My wife was the first to "tumble" because the ashtrays stayed empty and the "smoke smell" went away. Some "addiction." No "false starts." No "nicotine gum." Just stopped smoking one day and haven't smoked, or really wanted to smoke again, to this day. That pretty much takes care of their "addiction" lie. (P45.net)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Terrorists Can't Face Truth

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, February 07, 2008 2:12:19 PM
"Last year, Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri (Where is bin Laden?), wrote to the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, telling him to 'be ready starting now' (They're both stupid) for America to run from Iraq, reminding him how America cut and ran from Vietnam and the 'aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam (after the POLITICIANS cut off funding), and how they ran and left their agents. Alas, Zarqawi never got to implement his Iraq takeover plan because the same troops that are allegedly losing the war right now killed him in June." They still think we're going to operate the way we did when Bill Clinton and other liberals were running things. And with the Democrats back in the White House (if they win), we might. They have "no stomach" for fighting the terrorists. But until then, with probably the ONLY politician in power with guts running things, THEY'D better run for cover. Until Bush is out of office, Zawahari (however he spells it today) himself may not survive. (Ann Coulter)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Romney Pulling Out

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:33:13 PM
Mitt Romney, who has consistently placed better than Huckabee, is "giving it up." I thought it was silly for Huckabee to suggest that he pull out, the other day. But it looks like it's going to happen. Not that we're better off with Romney gone, and we would not be with Huckabee gone. Even while he's pulling out, I hear it said that "Mitt Romney is the conservative's conservative." What a load! There ARE no conservatives in the race on the Republican side, and certainly not on the Democrat side. Romney can't even say it! He says he's "suspending" his candidacy ('till next election, I guess). In quitting, he said that he didn't want his candidacy to allow a victory for the Democrats, who have shown that they want to "cut and run" from those "17th-century rag-heads" that we're beating now. The only real conservative in the race (Fred Thompson) couldn't get any support from the "elite Republicans" and pulled out a long time ago. It looks like we're going to have to suffer another four years (maybe eight, if voters are stupid enough) of Democrat incompetence in the White House, AND in the Congress (even if McCain wins). The only hope I have is that it won't be our "Evita Peron," Hillary Clinton. She thinks the presidency is hers by default. I'd like to see her disabused of that notion. If she gets elected, watch for an attempt to make her "President for Life," with BIll as either vice-president or Secretary General of the United Nations. If I'm lucky, I won't live to see that if it happens. Obama's not much better, since his record shows he's a "committed socialist," whether he (or anybody else) either realizes it or admits it. If Hillary gets elected, I'm going to buy a big gun, because I'm going to need it when the Islamic terrorists get here, as they will when she surrenders and creates policies (as her husband did) to cripple our intelligence services and our military. (Fox News)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rosie and "The Donald"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:27:25 PM
Who gives a damn? I know this happened a while ago, but the lessons are still there. Rosie O'Donnell criticized Donald Trump for giving Tara Connor (Miss USA) a "second chance," asking, "Who is he to be a 'moral compass,' with his record?" Then he fired back, saying she's fat and ugly (he didn't use those exact words, but his meaning was clear), an "animal," a "loser," and would like to spend some time herself with Tara (A reference to her own problems with a "moral compass"). Okay. They don't like each other. But to look at Fox News and other news sources, you'd think there were only two stories in the world at the time; Rosie/The "Donald," and snow in Denver. I really get tired of the news media (including Fox) spending so much time on unimportant things like Rosie and Trump's "war of words" so that they don't have time to cover what's important. By the way: doesn't Rosie, among other ultra-liberals, condemn the use of SUVs? Strange that the picture they took of her leaving the studio after the "View" show in a big, black, SUV did not draw any comment. This is the same gal who condemned the use of guns for self-defense, then was found to use ARMED bodyguards for her children. Apparently guns are okay to protect her kids, as long as she doesn't have to carry them. (Access Hollywood)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain is No Conservative

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:05:26 PM
I don't hold that against him. I"M not a conservative, either. What I hold against him is his efforts to convince voters he IS a conservative. John McCain tries very hard to convince the electorate he is a conservative, but he is not. Most of the better-known bills he has sponsored have been with Democrats (liberals) or have taken us in a liberal (socialist) direction. A good example is McCain-Lieberman; or McCain-Kennedy. Then there is the one he sponsored (McCain-Feingold) to help all political incumbents by making it a crime to say anything about an incumbent politician within a short time before an election. That one was patently unconstitutional, but he doesn't care. If he gets the Republican nomination, I may have to "hold my nose" and vote for him, if only to keep something that looks like a Republican in the White House. If either Hillary or Obama get in there, we will move ever faster toward a socialistic (collectivist) form of government. McCain will also move us toward socialism, but at a slower rate. We might even be able to survive 4 or 8 tears of McCain, I don't know. Yes, I know he is a "war hero." But so was our best-known traitor, Benedict Arnold, before he became a spy for the other side. (This is not to indicate the idea that McCain is a spy or a traitor, but to show that a "war hero" is not necessarily the best choice, just because he was a war hero). Romney and McCain call each other liberal, but that's like "the pot calling the kettle black." (Human Events)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Semantics

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, February 03, 2008 6:09:46 PM
"Non Sequitur" cartoonist Wiley seems to be a liberal most of the time (and that's not a label, that's truth, based on what he more often  than not pushes in his cartoons), but often he is so right, I think he couldn't possibly be a liberal. That's what happened with this cartoon, which some people would say applies to Republicans as well as Democrats, and they might be right. I especially like his "Obviousman" character when he "shut down" the old man with a beard who was carrying a sign that said, "There Are No Absolutes" a long time ago. I still have that one on my office wall. Sometimes you can find better (or worse) thoughts on the funny pages than in the editorial pages. (Non Sequitur)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obvious Liberal Media Bias

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, February 03, 2008 5:48:10 PM
The other day, I was challenged when I mentioned the "liberal media bias." The challenger called "liberal media bias" a "cliché." Is it? When Chris Matthews, of "Meet the Press" says, "If you're in a room where Obama is speaking and you're not crying, you're not an American," does that not show an obvious bias of at least this member of the liberal media? And I could pick out memorable quotes from media members every day to show their bias. Obama is a "media creation." They created him to be "the underdog" for "Rocky" (otherwise known as Hillary) to "whip" so it wouldn't seem like she has "lock on the Democrat nomination. But he might surprise everybody and win. Wouldn't THAT "frost their burgers!" They're even working hard now to "Kennedyize" him, comparing him to John Kennedy. Of course, that won't work, because Kennedy was a lot less liberal than he is. And JFK was better looking (Teddy is not). Even "Move on.org" is pushing him, even though they came into existence specifically for the purpose of getting America to "move on" AWAY from Bill Clinton's crimes and not to fire him as president, even though he was legally impeached (How many of today's Americans understand the difference?). Matthews is now even comparing Bush to King George with this, discussing an Obama victory as: "The shot heard 'round the world. This is Lexington and Concord with the target being not King George but President George this time." As if Obama was the "American Revolution" and George Bush was the king to be deposed, even though he's not even on the ballot. Then he showed his unparalleled hatred of George Bush by saying, "There's no doubt about it. And there's no way to read it except as a rebuke to President Bush." A rebuke to George Bush? How can that be? Bush is not even on the ballot, and will not be. We're talking about the DEMOCRAT primary here! Not the general election with George Bush on the ballot. Later he said, "He is so emblematic of our attempt, I think, to rejoin the world." WHAT world? When did we leave it, anywhere except in the imagination of liberals? Without us, the world would collapse. The very countries who are knocking us are receiving millions, sometimes BILLIONS of our tax dollars. Sheesh!  Is this not blatant liberal bias in the news? (News Busters) 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Addicted to Oil?"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Saturday, February 02, 2008 12:31:55 PM
I agree with George Bush in most things. But sometimes he says, and does, some amazingly irresponsible things. Like his statement that we are "addicted to oil." I wonder what his definition of "addicted" is. It would appear that under his definition, I'm "addicted" to air; and water; and food; and sleep, at least eight hours a day. "We consume nearly 21 million barrels of oil per day, everyday, and our appetite is increasing. Today, the American economy demands over 25 percent of global oil production while our known oil reserves make up only 3 percent of global supply. Even as our thirst for more oil increases, China, India and the developing world are demanding a greater share of the pie. China alone recently attempted to acquire the American oil giant Unocal and has signed contracts worth billions of dollars with Iran for oil and natural gas." Only 3% of global supply in "known reserves, huh?" Why? Because the environmental crazies won't let us drill for oil anywhere in the U. S. or wherever it controls things, because of AlGore's imaginary :"global warming" swindle (Apparently, even Bush has bought that fairy tale). There's plenty of oil on U. S. sovereign territory, but the liberals won't let us find it. Oil is a "staple." Like food and water." Until we find an effective substitute for oil, we will continue to be "addicted" to oil, as are all other civilized (and uncivilized) nations. Maybe he could overrule those environmental crazies and allow oil drilling in ANWR and other sites, even those that block Teddy Kennedy's view of the ocean. But don't hold your breath. (Real Clear Politics)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »