About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Buying the White House

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 2:22:50 PM
Frankly, that’s what Obama did, with money slipped to him by George Soros. He SAYS that half of the $668 million he “raised” for the campaign (completely swamping the little bit McCain was able to raise) came from INDIVIDUALS sending him $20 or so at a time. He’s supposed to have raised $150 million in ONE DAY that way, just before the election, so he could buy a half hour of prime time television time that McCain could only watch. It’s practically impossible for him to have raised so much in such a short time from individual contributors—whose names he STILL won’t release (for a good reason: they don’t exist). Now, he can deny it all he wants, but it will stand unless he DOES release those names and let investigators verify they DO exist. (News Max)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Discovered" Votes

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 2:20:07 PM
When the election in Minnesota was over, Republican incumbent Norm Coleman had won by more than 700 votes. Then they “discovered" 100 more votes that had been cast TWO DAYS before the election and, surprise, surprise, they were ALL for funnyman Al Franken. Now THAT’S funny! And they’ve been fighting and “discovering” all kinds of votes all over the place ever since. Coleman still holds a slim lead, and Franken is predicting a victory. Does he know something we don’t know? Are there even more votes to “discover?” Will they all be for him? Sounds like “the fix is in.” Are a majority of elections officials Democrat? They are in most places in America, almost guaranteeing a Democrat victory anywhere the vote is close. (Ann Coulter)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Saving the World

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 2:17:06 PM
Politicians are always announcing measures to do things like “saving the world.” Promising to do impossible things. And gullible people believe them. In Denver, Mayor Hickenlooper is providing prepaid cell phones to indigents and unemployables in the “homeless community” so they’ll have phone numbers for potential employers to call them back and give them jobs. What “hizzonor” forgets is that most of those people are unemployable for one reason or another; some are mentally ill; others are just lazy and don’t WANT to work at anything; then there are those who are just too dirty and won’t clean up. Many look down on jobs at convenience stores and fast-food outfits (which are plentiful). They’d rather stand on corners 14 hours a day in all kinds of weather holding their signs, begging. They don’t “look down” on that. One man once came up to me and asked for money. I told him I never give money to people begging on the street. Then I got this smart-alek answer: “Would you give it to me if I were in a car?” Most of these people think they are “too good” to work  (Just common sense)


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

Shooting Back

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 3:21:49 PM
Even the United Nations agrees, if they shoot at you, you can shoot back. "While condemned as 'disproportionate,' Israeli attacks on Hamas installations in Gaza are the only appropriate response to daily terror [created by Hamas -RT]. As the U.N. Charter says, when they shoot at you, you can shoot back." What is so hard to understand about that? Yet the Palestinians keep saying Israel’s response to their daily rocket attacks is “disproportionate.” Military strategists have long said there is no such thing as a “disproportionate response” when you’re attacked. The proportionate response” is to overwhelm your enemy and destroy them. Something Israel has not yet committed itself to, if their “consideration” of yet ANOTHER cease-fire is fact, and not liberal crap. If I were the Israeli premier, I’d order them destroyed, NOW. (IBD Editorials)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ireland to Ban the Glock

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 3:14:28 PM
The Glock is the gangster’s favorite gun, so Ireland is going to ban it. Completely. Does anybody really think that will reduce the number of Glocks used in crimes in Ireland? I don’t. I think the number of Glocks in Ireland will INCREASE, as do all things banned. Remember prohibition in the U. S.? Booze in this country didn’t “disappear,” as those pushing prohibition predicted; it INCREASED exponentially. People were making booze in their BATHTUBS. Criminals will, as usual, have no problem getting Glocks in Ireland, or any other kind of gun, actually.  And they will make a lot more money doing it. When you ban something, you create a black market and even more of that item is sold than ever before. Politicians (everywhere) never learn that. What idiots they are! (Herald.ie)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gun Control Helped Killers

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, December 28, 2008 1:55:23 PM
One reason the death toll was so high in Mumbai (formerly Bombay), India, is that the cops refused to fire back until the terrorists were well-entrenched and had killed a lot of people. Then, belatedly, they went in and killed all but one of the terrorists. Sounds to me like Mumbai police need a lot of training, and maybe even some infusion of backbone. They had 500 rifles they could have used, if they had worked. They hadn’t been fired in ten years. Looks like the terrorists made a good choice of targets. A place where there was no opposition until they had killed many people. Sure, most of them ended up dead, but Islamic terrorists consider that a “good thing.” They probably hate the one who didn’t get killed. One thing that facilitated the massacre otherwise was the tight Indian "gun control" laws that kept guns out of the hands of people who could have defended themselves, but did nothing to stop the terrorists from getting guns, so they had plenty. (The Independent)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HAMAS Decries "Israeli Violence"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, December 28, 2008 1:02:25 PM
Completely forgetting (ignoring) Hamas rocket attacks precipitated the “Israeli violence.” Now they’re demanding other Islamics “rally” to defend Gaza, from where they launched their rocket attacks; the ones that were so inept they only killed one Israeli while Israel’s counter-attacks killed 250 Palestinians. (Hamas makes a “big thing” about “civilians" [mostly Palestinian policemen] being killed, including a 15-year-old boy in a greenhouse, while saying they [Hamas] are the “good guys” because their attacks were so inept as to kill only one, which they say is “none.”). They’re now calling Israeli counterattack “war crimes.” If so, what were THEIR rocket attacks, which came first? Sounds like the “Six-Day War” all over again to me, where Israel kicked the rear ends of Islamics who attacked them then. Something Islamics are still steaming about. Looks like Islamic terrorists never learn. They’re just not up to fighting Israel in any way. The only thing keeping them alive is Israel’s forbearance in the face of murdering Palestinians. With Israel massing troops on the Gaza border, it looks like Israeli’s patience is at an end and they’re ready to finish the job; no matter how much they insist they are not ready to invade Gaza, which they stupidly gave up a few years ago. They’re good at war, but not so much at negotiation. Hamas says Israel can end the violence (from Hamas) by "bending over and grabbing their ankles and agreeing to a cooperative government [with Hamas in charge, of course]). They didn't say it that way, but that's how it is. (Yahoo News/AP)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

He Just Can't Win!

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, December 28, 2008 12:55:27 PM
HE JUST CAN'T WIN! Rev. Rick Warren has "earned" the ire of militant gays for supporting Proposition 8 in California (You know, where millions of voters rejected the idea of gays "redefining" the word "marriage" by demanding it be used to describe their "unions") and think he shouldn't be "allowed" to give Obama's inauguration invocation (I think gays should have ALL the rights of a married couple, but call it something else, dammit!). They apparently feel that ANYONE who disagrees with them should be ostracized. Apparently some conservative Christians are mad at him for ACCEPTING Obama's invitation to give the invocation at his inaugural. (Just common sense)


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

"Stoking Homophobia"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:54:23 PM
Now they’re criticizing the POPE for criticizing gays, like he doesn't have a right to his own opinion. The Catholic Church has always been against homosexual behavior, so it’s nothing new for the Pope to criticize gays. Never mind that the very word “homophobia” is a “made-up word” designed to intimate that ANYONE who criticizes gays, in any way, is somehow “mentally unbalanced.” I have nothing against gays. They can do what they want in private. But to intimate everybody who is against homosexuality is “mentally ill” is stupid. Of course, they’ll call me a “homophobe” for saying this, but who cares? I don’t live for their approval. I'd say the same if I were gay. (Times Online)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Do We Even Bother?

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:51:57 PM
Some Iraqis don’t appreciate our sacrifices made to ensure their freedom to throw shoes at speakers in news conferences (although most do). I’m sure if this guy had thrown shoes at Saddam or any other Islamic “leader,” he’d have been executed within hours; maybe even minutes. But he apparently doesn’t appreciate it that we sacrificed many young lives, and spent billions of dollars so he could throw his shoes at President Bush. No, his action didn’t move anybody away from their current positions about Iraq. But at least, through our efforts, he is still alive and will probably soon be free to throw shoes at more people who have helped him better himself. Apparently, there are others who agree with him in being non-appreciative of our efforts because there seems to be a “ground-swell” of support for him. Why do we even bother to try and make things better for such people? (IBD Editorials)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What's WRONG With Powell?

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:49:09 PM
He used to be a pretty good general. But then he became a politician and Bush made the mistake (soon rectified) of appointing him Secretary of state. Now he wants us to “get away” from what got Republicans elected most of the time in recent years. "Former Secretary of State Colin Powell wants his party stripped of the Reaganite values that won it the presidency for 20 of the last 28 years. Meet the "Grand Obama Party." I think he just wants another job, with a president who has the same values as his. I’m not going to say he’s “gone stupid,” but it’s hard to ignore the idiocy of his policies. (IBD Editorials)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The "Job Bank?"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Monday, December 22, 2008 3:05:39 PM
Where automaker laid-off workers continue to be paid as is they were still working. So what’s the purpose of laying them off? I thought it was to relieve the employer of the cost of their salaries. But not according to the auto unions. Apparently they think, as do liberals and Democrats, that these companies are not in business to make a profit, but are there simply to create jobs. That is an asinine thought, and anybody who believes it should be "tarred and feathered." This is one of the main reasons why automakers are in so much trouble, and throwing more money down their dark hole is not going to solve their problems, most of which are caused by such things as this “job bank” and the extremely high pay they’re agreed to pay their workers, which is slowly (slowly?) pricing them out of the market while foreign makers pay a lot less and undersell them. Paying workers NOT to work is about as silly as paying farmers not to farm. But our government still does it, to our detriment. Apparently they haven’t learned their lesson. You know, the simple one that paying people not to work just doesn’t work. It’s stupid. The whole idea that people will not buy a car made by a company in bankruptcy is just as stupid. They continued to fly on airlines in bankruptcy, didn't they? And those airlines were soon out of bankruptcy, weren't they? (Heritage Foundation)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Putting Lipstick on a Pig"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Monday, December 22, 2008 3:02:28 PM
That’s what they’re doing with this “bailout” program that’s supposed to “keep people in their homes.” It does NOT. "A new federal report shows that most bailed-out borrowers slip back into default within six months. Will Washington now throw more good (taxpayer) money after bad?" Will they have to bail out the banks and auto unions over and over again along with the borrowers who don’t repay loans? People who don’t repay their loans, which is what the CRA (Citizen’s Reinvestment Act of 1976) was designed to promote, don’t repay their loans, no matter how many chances you give them. So are we going to have to “bail them out” over and over again? (IBD Editorials)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Conservative" Sources?

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Monday, December 22, 2008 3:00:13 PM
Some people ask me why all my sources (oe most of them) are "conservative sources," and why I don't use more "mainstream media" sources? There's a good reason for that; most of what I write about you won't FIND in the misnamed "mainstream media." The only time I use liberal media sources is to show just how they're lying or distorting what they DO report. It's difficult to show them completely ignoring news that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions and socialistic (liberal) views (Such as the good things happening in Iraq). If I tried that, any links I provide would go to empty spaces. (Just common sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrat Scandal? What Democrat Scandal?

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, December 21, 2008 7:01:09 PM
"In October 2006, the national media projected Rep. Mark Foley's online sex chats with House pages into a disaster that would swallow the Grand Old Party whIle. CBS, for example, proclaimed it the 'congressional equivalent of Katrina.' In 2008, when federal investigators found Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich trying to put Barack Obama's Senate seat on the auction block, these same 'news' gatherers found a storm, to be sure, but a storm they suggested would in short order be 'pushed out to sea.' " That’s the “two-tier system;” the “double standard” they use in handling political scandals. If it’s a Republican in trouble, scream it to the skies. If it’s a Democrat, cover it as little as possible; hopefully, only one day; or less, if possible. This is something people who “pay attention” see. (IBD Editorials)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »