About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

What IS Socialism?

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:53:46 PM
Imagine my surprise when my own sister read the first few chapters of my new book, "What's WRONG In America" in manuscript form and asked me "What is socialism?" She said she became confused at all the "isms" I mentioned. I explained to her that socialism is just one form of collectivism, which is basically TAKING from those who EARN their way and GIVING that taken to those who DON'T. Their "mantra" is "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need, making "need" a DEMAND on the EARNINGS of those who can earn their own way. The major fight is between collectivism and individualism. Individualism is where a person earns his/her own way, and doesn't "need" anything from others. Looters can't stand this. They want others to "need" things, so they can use this "need" to gain their votes to gain and retain power over all of us.. I call these people the "moochers" (leeches) of society The "enablers" are the "looters" who to get themselves elected to positions of power over the rest of us, promise to TAKE from those who can, and will EARN, and "keep the goodies coming" so the "moochers" can live without having to work at anything except convincing the "looters" they are the most needy. Needless to say, she is now much more educated on "the ways of the world."  But that experience was, to me, an "epiphany." I had thought that EVERYONE knew what socialism was, and why it is EVIL. They do not. Which is why I wrote that book, which, if you read it all, does a good job of explaining just what socialism is. The book will be out very soon. It is being printed right now. I'll let you know where you can get it then. (Just common sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary to Cry and Stomp Her Feet

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:37:31 PM
If she loses the nomination fight to Obama. She has already "vowed to fight to the end" if she loses the nomination she thought was hers for the asking. That's what babies do when disappointed in what they want. Throw a fit. From what I've heard, she's good at that. Advice for her "handlers:" When you come in to tell her "It's all over," make sure there are no ash trays within her reach, and that someone bigger than her is stationed at every  lamp, or she'll throw it. She doesn't know it, but it's already "all over." Even if she manages to steal it from Obama at the convention, there's no way she'll win the general election unless this nation is more ignorant than I thought. If it is,  I probably won't be around long enough to see the result. If you want America to be the new "Soviet Union," just vote for either  Hillary OR Obama. (Just common sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Can't Say That!"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:11:50 PM
The liberals have a "growing list" of things WE "can't say" in debating them for the presidency. They've always had it, and have always attempted to control the very words we can use in opposing them. Where the hell do they get off trying to tell us we can't use certain words or refer to certain things, such as Obama's "elephant ears?" Or his socialism? Or his tendency to blab his way to stupidity? Obama is a "sock puppet" for "move0n.org" and its billionaire sponsor, who has funded many lying books, the latest one the "Big Lie" by Scott McClellan. We can't talk about Obama's wife, even as she slams this country over and over; We can't talk about his twenty-year pastor, who taught her to do so. Seems like we can't talk about ANYTHING that might hurt Obama's chances of conning his way into the presidency. "Political correctness" is a larger version of that, trying to DICTATE the very words we are "allowed" to use in the debate. I don't "buy it." I say what I mean and I don't use "weasel words." That gets me into trouble every so often, but I don't care. Truth is truth. If they want to "call me names" for telling it, so be it. (Ann Coulter)

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

Kids Need to Experience Losing

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:08:41 PM
The trend today is to "protect" the "tender egos" of kids by not allowing them to lose at ANYTHING. They're playing sports and not keeping score so the losers "won't be hurt." What they haven't considered is that "real life" is going to teach them what it feels like to lose" very quickly, once they get out there. And if they haven't experienced it and overcome it before, they're going to be "in trouble." (Parenting and Child Health)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Book Burning?

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 2:43:31 PM
It's pretty bad when a person can get in trouble in America for reading a book. "Last November, Keith Sampson, a college student, was found guilty of “racial harassment.” He’d been caught reading a book while on break from a part-time job with the school. Uh-oh. The book is titled Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan. It recounts a conflict between Irish Catholics and the Klan back in the 1920s. The book is clearly anti-Klan." But so what? Even if it were pro-Klan, what law was broken by his reading it on his own time? The "Affirmative Action Officer" said his reading of it is "racial harassment" without even talking to him or reading the book (Methinks this "affirmative Action Officer" has way too much time on his hands and is just LOOKING for "harassment." How can this be? Maybe if he paraded the book in front of a Klansman. But how does reading ANY book become "harassment" of ANYBODY? We're getting way stupid in our "political correctness" in this country. Pretty soon, they'll try and call this blog "political harassment." And they'd be right. But so far, there is no law against "political harassment," and they'd have to get rid of the First Amendment before such a law could even be made. Why is there even such a THING as an "Affirmative Action Officer?" I'd just "flip him the finger" and turn the page. Fortunately, the university (IUPUI, Indianapolis) finally came to its senses and reversed this "ruling." I think they ought to fire this "Affirmative Action Officer" and abolish his job. (Paul Jacob/Common Sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Interrupting McCain's Speech

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 2:39:30 PM
On three occasions, idiots interrupted the speech being given in Colorado by presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, shouting stupidities right and left. Fortunately, on all three occasions, the secutiry was quick, removing them before they could be but a minor inconvenience, "laughed off" by the candidate. Why is it most of the "demonstrations" by stupid people like this happen at Republican speeches? Maybe it's because Republicans are too busy at their jobs and have no time to do things like this, while liberals, most of whom are unemployed or the children of the rich, do. What I'm wondering is how Hillary squirmed her picture into a story about McCain. I'm not a McCain (or an Obama or Hillary) supporter, but this seems "fishy" to me. (New York Times)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Still Just Don't Get It!

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 2:36:43 PM
They're still mired in the inexplicable fantasy that Iraq has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. Forget that Saddam was financing, housing, and training Islamic terrorists. That he even had an airplane body to use in training terrorists to take over planes in flight (and this was BEFORE 9/11!). Forget that he was paying the families of terrorist suicide bombers in Israel or wherever they blew themselves up $25,000 to do so. Liberals in this country and elsewhere still think Iraq is the ONLY country where Islamic terrorists didn't exist. Frankly, the biggest terrorist (at the time) in existence (after bin Laden, that is) was Saddam Hussein and the country that he ran was the biggest, most friendly place for terrorists to go and "feel safe" during his reign. On the other hand, his own citizens could not "feel safe" from his depredations, including "rape rooms" and false imprisonment and murder (which was called "executions"). Saddam was one more murderous dictator who NEEDED to be "taken down," for your safety and mine. It is noteworthy that Islamic terrorists chose Iraq as THE place to fight with the world, since our own liberals won't admit Iraq is, and has always been, a big part of the Islamic terrorism conspiracy. Iran is also, and should be the next country to be "liberated."  They claim that fighting us is the only reason terrorists can recruit, but they have been recruiting ignorant Muslims (those their rulers KEPT ignorant) for hundreds of years. They only began to "get traction" in their efforts when they started getting "oil money" from Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Middle East countries who hated us, anyway. (Heritage Foundation)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »