About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Controversy? Only In Boulder

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 6:01:14 PM
Only in Boulder does something like this "cause a controversy." Boulder, Colorado is mostly liberal, and U of Colorado especially. And it is the liberals who are in "complete denial" about the Islamic terrorist threat, so a couple of former terrorists who "tell it like it is" are going to be "controversial." What they tell us is that Muslims (not just the terrorist kind) are TAUGHT FROM BIRTH to hate people who don't believe the way they do. "Infidels" are to always be an object of hatred. So it's no wonder the Islamic maniacs who CLAIM to be a "religious organization" (They're not.) have no trouble recruiting people who are ignorant enough to believe that crap about "74 virgins" at their beck and call if they are killed while attempting to kill Infidels (Makes you wonder how the girls remain virgins after they've had sex with the men a few times.). Liberals better "wake up," or when the Islamic terrorists are able to come here (after a liberal president "releases" them from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan), guess who will be the first people killed? Liberals? (Rocky Mountain News)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Not Constrained By Truth

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 5:58:23 PM
Doonesbury was once asked why he did cartoons about politics, using themes that were patently false. His answer? This is a cartoon strip. I don't have to stick to the truth! Unfortunately, that's true. But impressionable kids AND adults read his drivel and believe it. His recent output is a repeat of a series he did some time ago where he pushed two ideas: that WE are responsible for the "recruiting increase" in terrorists in Iraq, and that WE "created" the Muslim extremists and terrorists who have been killing people who don't believe the same way they do for thousands of years. The strip involved tells us the terrorists "are new at this--you only just created us." What a load of bullpoop! It also creates the idea that we "can't beat these bozos," which is a fantasy, We ARE "beating these bozos," but the liberal press won't report it. I'm getting very tired of correcting this kind of crap. It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people BUY it. I probably shouldn't be surprised, since most people are proud of the fact that they "don't pay attention to politics," so why would I be surprised that they know nothing? They may not pay attention to politics, but they are fed this kind of stupid crap every day on the comics pages, not just by Doonesbury strips, but in other strips, as well. What amazes me is the editors put "Mallard Fillmore" on the editorial pages while leaving this where it is. That tells me more about the editors than anything else. "What is 'Mallard Fillmore?" Maybe you should look his strip up and find out. (Doonesbury)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IS It "About the Black Church?"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 5:51:53 PM
Rev. Jeremiah Wright keeps insisting the controversy about his "racist rantings" is "not about Rev. Wright, it's about the black church." He wishes. The uproar is about the idiot things he has said, many times, from his pulpit and Obama's insistence (which nobody believes for a minute) that he never heard Wright say such things in TWENTY YEARS of attending his church. One Wonders why Wright came out at this time and made his "racist rants" when he knew it would hurt Obama's chances of becoming president. I can give you an answer to that: he knows if Obama (a black man) is elected president, it will give the lie to his (Wright's) racist rants and he doesn't want that. He can't afford to have a black man elected president. This has nothing to do with "the black church." It has everything to do with Wright's "racist ranting" in his church for 20 years. Wright is doing the same thing Muslim Imams are doing. Inciting his followers to violence. If Obama is not nominated or elected, many of his followers will say it's because he's black, and some have even PROMISED violence. It's not. For my part, I don't like him because he's a SOCIALIST, not because he has some black blood in his body. I have the same thing against Hillary, though Obama is more of a socialist than she is, if you can believe that. To answer the question many people will ask, yes. I would vote for a black man for president, I would vote for a woman for president. I would vote for a black WOMAN for president. I would have voted for Alan Keys. I'd LIKE to vote for Condoleeza Rice. But she doesn't want it. (Yahoo News)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Newt's "Worn Out His Welcome"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:11:15 PM
When I see Newt Gingrich sitting on a couch next to  Nancy Pelosi pushing global warming, he has "worn out his welcome" with me because he has shown his complete IGNORANCE on "global warming" and I don't want his to be elected or appointed to ANY office that might affect me in the future. When I see this image it tells me not that "they" have agreed on something, but that HE has "agreed with HER!" ANY time I see a Republican sitting on the same couch with such as Pelosi, he loses ALL his credibility with me. I have unsubscribed from his e-mail newsletter and will from now on ignore anything he says, as I do with Democrats (except to learn of their latest idiocy).(Adam Naranjo)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Biggest, Most Successful Swindle Yet

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:52:40 PM
AlGore was a "rich man" when he was vice-president. But not nearly as rich as he is now, after years of "working" the "global warming swindle." Now he wants to subject this country to what will be a TRILLION DOLLAR TAX to "help alleviate" global warming, which is only in his warped mind. He has already benefited from this scam to the tune of millions of dollars, and what is this "major catastrophe" to which he refers? A 1/4 degree temperature rise in A HUNDRED YEARS! Something that has been happening periodically since the dawn of time without ANY danger to humans, and NOT caused by humans. Even that highly vaunted picture of ice "breaking off" and sliding into the sea he uses to convince us is a MINIATURE, and the "ice" is plastic foam. Yes, ice DOES periodically break off and slide into the sea. It also reforms elsewhere. Polar bears DO have to swim now and then, but then they can swim for HUNDREDS OF MILES. They LIVE in "cold country" and have no trouble if it's a fraction of a degree warmer for a while. Gore has used his status asa a former vice-president to push the most massive swindle in the history of America (that we know about) and to enrich himself (beyond how rich he was already) in the process. He needs to be "reined in." His propaganda movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," is "required viewing" in many schools around the world. But according to a British court, contains at least ELEVEN lies (that they call "inaccuracies") and the film can't be shown to schoolchildren in that country without attention being called to those lies. Fred Singer, one of the world's top environmental scientists, the man who INVENTED the very instruments used to determine "global warming" or "global cooling," says this: "Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me. An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician." This is the kind of person Al calls a "denier," as if his word is not worth anything, his knowledge and experience notwithstanding.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Attack! Attack!

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:44:57 PM
Hillary once called The American Spectator "the right-wing publication that regularly attacked the [Clinton] administration." But she doesn't call what she and her husband did to the Spectator "an attack" after they used the IRS, the FBI and any number of other federal agencies and the courts to "attack" the Spectator for over 14 months, costing them a LOT of money for legal fees and almost destroying them. The fact that the Spectator was not found guilty of ANYTHING escaped notice of all but the "alternative ('right-wing') media." Seems like it's only an "attack" when it's coming HER way. Last time I heard, the Spectator was just a news magazine looking for truth. There's nothing that is an "attack" about printing the truth on a regular basis, unless your activities make you a regular target, as did those of Bill Clinton and, yes, Hillary. They're both swindlers and con men/women that happened to con their way into the presidency. They'd rather lie than tell the truth, when the truth would serve better. They'd rather steal than buy, when it would be easier to buy. They stole their way to riches while in office and beyond, now they can't resist telling us how rich they are, at every opportunity. Now Hillary is trying to con her way back into the White House, this time with HER in the "cat-bird seat." I hope this country isn't dumb enough to put that pair back in the White House so they can scam us out of more. I guess she's call this "an attack." Because I'm telling the truth about her. It's like the "swiftboating" tag. They use it as an epithet, assuming people  automatically see it as "lying" about somebody. In reality, the term means "telling the truth" about somebody, since the "swiftboaters" have never been found to be lying. (Amazon/Dick Morris)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »