So, the Comrade was being interviewed the other day -- one of those one-on-one, heart-to-heart, intimate tete-a-tetes the networks schedule every so often to make smarmy politicians look like big, cuddly teddy bears -- and the reporter asked him something like, "What do you feel has been your greatest mistake in office?"
The Comrade says -- with a slightly furrowed brow, indicating his heartfelt concern -- that he deeply regrets he just didn't "tell enough stories" to the American public. See, we didn't buy the spin the way he wanted us to.
And he'll humbly admit, he's at fault. He should have found another way to spin it. Some "spoonful of sugar" that would have made the medicine -- and a load of other manure -- go down.
I think the Comrade has told us plenty of "stories." More than we can count. Contradictory stores. Ridiculous confabulations of utopian fantasy. Etc., etc. Sounds like he's telling another one right now.
See, it's not that we see through the fluff (or should that be Ploufe?), thoroughly understand the marxist policies he's promoting, and resoundingly reject them. It's not like that at all. He just didn't explain it right.
It's not like the minimum "free and accessible" health care policy we're compelled to buy under Obamacare is going to cost an average family of four $12,000 to $15,000 per year. And if you don't get it, $695 in penalties for each family member -- collected by the IRS. And even paying the penaly (or tax, if you prefer), you still don't get health insurance. You still have to fork over the $12,000. Or the IRS will come and put a lien on your paycheck and/or your home. And will probably eat your children (sorry, just a little spin there).
That doesn't bother anyone. That's not creating a truly frightening scenario for families that are already struggling to keep up with mortgage payments, the skyrocketing cost of fuel and food, and stuff like that. Those families who can't be sure, week-to-week, if they'll still have a job Monday, or if their industry isn't being regulated out of existence by the EPA.
No, see, if the Comrade had just explained it all a little better.....
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I worked in public relations and advertising for decades. You can do a lot with language and presentation to make something more attractive. But it you've got a crappy product nobody wants, you ain't gonna sell it. Nobody's buying.
Lipstick on this pig just hasn't worked. And it's not likely to. The Comrade has a record now. Can't vote "present" in the White House. Yup. It's all his fault.
We just don't want the very specious, useless and destructive socialist products he's peddling.
Save the Republic.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Time for the puzzle factory, Ms. Pelosi?
You know, I watched Romney's speech to the NAACP yesterday. The audience was attentive, he was interrupted at least a dozen times by applause, and then there was the one instant when he mentioned the dangers of "Obamacare," and a few in the crowd booed.
Guess what made the news?
On the whole, the NAACP was polite and receptive. Romney got a much better response from them than, say, Arlen Specter and Nanny Sibelius got at Specter's Town Hall meetings. And them were largely edurcatered honkies in that'ere Pennsylvanie.
And does anytone really expect Romney to carry the NAACP? The black voting population votes for dems at the rate of about 90% -- consistently since at least the days of Roosevelt. They voted something like 99% for Obama. I think the NAACP treated Romney very well -- gave him what was for the most part a fair hearing.
But it's the three or four seconds of booing that made the headlines.
And now Pazzo Pelosi has outdone herself trying to explain the whole situation. See, forget the fact that Romney is, after all, the "presumptive" Republican candidate for the US presidency and the NAACP thought it would serve their membership to hear him out.
No-o-o-o. According to Pazzo, Romney had the whole thing planned. He knew he was going to be booed. Can't you just picture him with his speech writers, sitting on the yacht, munching Cheetohs, trying to come up with just the right line to trigger the disapproval?
And, see, according to Pazzo, the booing is a desirable thing for Romney. Pazzo says that if the mostly black folks at the NAACP boo you, that will convince your following among southern conservatives that you truly are one of them.
I think Pazzo's racist. Clearly, she believes conservatives -- especially southern ones -- all wear KKK sheets under their overalls and Dago T's. She's prejudiced against caucasians.
Can't you see it? Good ol' Jim-Bob and Ray-Ray lolling on a hay bale back of the barn, picking their teeth with matchbook covers, and listening to that Uppity Rich Yankee Carpetbagger talking to them shameless insurrectionists over to the NAACP.
"Hey, Jim-Bob, you heard a boo yet?"
"I b'lieve I jus' did, Ray-Ray. Yup. They's a-booing ol' Mitt. So it 'pears to me, he mus' be one of us. I guess I'll jus' toss my vote to him come November, 'stead of exing in David Duke again."
Yeah. Just like a politically incorrect Li'l Abner movie.
So exactly how shall we portray all the naked, gay, Mexican-born, tree-hugging PETA members Pelosi represents? Don't have to, I guess, since they mostly don't speak English and are probably too stoned to care much.
Hey, Pazzo, come this way. Gently, gently. Don't stir her up. That's right, we'll just strap you in here safe and sound so you don't hurt yourself..... Yeah, and take a seat in the back of the wagon there.... Even the walls are nice and soft, just for you.
Save the Republic.
Guess what made the news?
On the whole, the NAACP was polite and receptive. Romney got a much better response from them than, say, Arlen Specter and Nanny Sibelius got at Specter's Town Hall meetings. And them were largely edurcatered honkies in that'ere Pennsylvanie.
And does anytone really expect Romney to carry the NAACP? The black voting population votes for dems at the rate of about 90% -- consistently since at least the days of Roosevelt. They voted something like 99% for Obama. I think the NAACP treated Romney very well -- gave him what was for the most part a fair hearing.
But it's the three or four seconds of booing that made the headlines.
And now Pazzo Pelosi has outdone herself trying to explain the whole situation. See, forget the fact that Romney is, after all, the "presumptive" Republican candidate for the US presidency and the NAACP thought it would serve their membership to hear him out.
No-o-o-o. According to Pazzo, Romney had the whole thing planned. He knew he was going to be booed. Can't you just picture him with his speech writers, sitting on the yacht, munching Cheetohs, trying to come up with just the right line to trigger the disapproval?
And, see, according to Pazzo, the booing is a desirable thing for Romney. Pazzo says that if the mostly black folks at the NAACP boo you, that will convince your following among southern conservatives that you truly are one of them.
I think Pazzo's racist. Clearly, she believes conservatives -- especially southern ones -- all wear KKK sheets under their overalls and Dago T's. She's prejudiced against caucasians.
Can't you see it? Good ol' Jim-Bob and Ray-Ray lolling on a hay bale back of the barn, picking their teeth with matchbook covers, and listening to that Uppity Rich Yankee Carpetbagger talking to them shameless insurrectionists over to the NAACP.
"Hey, Jim-Bob, you heard a boo yet?"
"I b'lieve I jus' did, Ray-Ray. Yup. They's a-booing ol' Mitt. So it 'pears to me, he mus' be one of us. I guess I'll jus' toss my vote to him come November, 'stead of exing in David Duke again."
Yeah. Just like a politically incorrect Li'l Abner movie.
So exactly how shall we portray all the naked, gay, Mexican-born, tree-hugging PETA members Pelosi represents? Don't have to, I guess, since they mostly don't speak English and are probably too stoned to care much.
Hey, Pazzo, come this way. Gently, gently. Don't stir her up. That's right, we'll just strap you in here safe and sound so you don't hurt yourself..... Yeah, and take a seat in the back of the wagon there.... Even the walls are nice and soft, just for you.
Save the Republic.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Harping on the same old string
The Comrade just gave a little speech somewhere. I only listened to the first minute or so before muting the TV -- can't stand the grating rasp of his voice anymore.
However, it seems the Comrade wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for one more year -- if he can tax the rich. Still riding that sorry and pointless hobby horse. What good will that do?
Had to laugh. Just before hitting the mute button, I heard him claim that "we've tried tax cut solutions."
I was sick and in the hospital for a week. I guess I missed the experimentation with tax cuts. But I recall the 1980s very clearly, the sharp, almost ecstatic economic upturn under Reagan, after the dire, depressing "malaise" years with Jimmy Carter ("Jeemy's a good man." Remember Rosalyn Carter, the last cheerleader, clinging to that simpering perception?)
But the Liar in Chief is just pathetic, isn't he? Hasn't got it yet -- you keep doing the same old thing, you keep getting the same results. And sure enough, unemployment only gets worse. The economy is slowing down again. Not a "double dip" recession, so long as an extended one -- becauase the Comrade's and Paul Krugman's and Robert Reich's policies simply don't friggin' work.
Look at Europe. Have they worked there?
Time to try something else. Like a new president and a functioning congress where Harry Reid sits quietly in the back, except to get up occasionally and regale us all with cowboy poetry.
Save the republic.
However, it seems the Comrade wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for one more year -- if he can tax the rich. Still riding that sorry and pointless hobby horse. What good will that do?
Had to laugh. Just before hitting the mute button, I heard him claim that "we've tried tax cut solutions."
I was sick and in the hospital for a week. I guess I missed the experimentation with tax cuts. But I recall the 1980s very clearly, the sharp, almost ecstatic economic upturn under Reagan, after the dire, depressing "malaise" years with Jimmy Carter ("Jeemy's a good man." Remember Rosalyn Carter, the last cheerleader, clinging to that simpering perception?)
But the Liar in Chief is just pathetic, isn't he? Hasn't got it yet -- you keep doing the same old thing, you keep getting the same results. And sure enough, unemployment only gets worse. The economy is slowing down again. Not a "double dip" recession, so long as an extended one -- becauase the Comrade's and Paul Krugman's and Robert Reich's policies simply don't friggin' work.
Look at Europe. Have they worked there?
Time to try something else. Like a new president and a functioning congress where Harry Reid sits quietly in the back, except to get up occasionally and regale us all with cowboy poetry.
Save the republic.
Friday, July 6, 2012
What Bain Capital really does -- grease the wheels
The White House continues to demonstrate its truly jaw-dropping ignorance of free enterprise and capitalist economics with its truly lame-brained and stupid attacks on Romney's Bain Capital and other venture capitalist firms.
The Comrade and his henchmen insist that Bain, and others like it, swoop down on unsuspecting companies, suck out all the capital and assets, and if the company remains in business, Bain then ships all the jobs overseas. Well, that's absolutely ridiculous.
What Bain actually does is offer a real boost to economic growth and stability, and if that's not possible in a given situation, they can redirect what's left of a failed venture into more productive and profitable channels. Here's what venture capitalists do:
Usually, these firms are made of up rich guys who accumulated a pile on Wall Street or in their own businesses. They very often are, legally, partnerships, or limited liability corportations with a very limited number of shareholders -- the investor-partners themselves. Partners may or may not be actively involved in the business. A lot of times, a guy will retire and take a few of his hard-earned millions, throw them in the pot of a vetnture capitalist firm, and leave it to the CEO and others there to look after.
What venture capital firms offer to potential clients is money and guidance. And venture capital firms are also known as "high-risk" investors -- so they're willing to bet a little more than most of the rest of us on companies and ideas that are usually a little too "iffy" to qualify for bank loans.
Suppose you inherited a family business. It was very successful at one time, but your dad/mom sort of sat back the last few years, you were sowing your wild oats and not interested, and your sibs pursued other careers. So now seeking some kind of stability, you agree to take over the business.
Your company has a lot of "good will" in it -- long-term and loyal customers, a reputation for fairness and quality products, and a stable or possibly growing market for your products. However, because your folks have let it slide the last few years, for you to make a success of it in 2012, you need to retool -- bring in computerized systems and retrain your workforce, possibly upgrade your building, market and advertise to break into broader markets, etc.
The thing is, over the last few years, while your parents were contemplating their retirement, a larger firm has been moving in on your traditional markets. This newer company not only has all the current, digital bells & whistles, but they're also developing newer, cheaper, more desireable products.
So there's lots of potential in your company -- in your employees' know-how and experience, customers who want to do business with you, etc. -- but you need lots of cash to bring it all up to speed and to be able to fend off an aggressive competitor.
So you go to the bank. The trouble is, your assets are outdated and your company over the last few years has looked pretty anemic in the marketplace. The bank pats you on the shoulder and wishes you the best, but, no, sorry, we need some solid collateral to back up any loans -- which your obsolescence doesn't support -- and/or you need some kind of market-leader position, which right now is in question.
So where do you go? Uncle Dave? He's also retiring and, after that unfortunate incident at Cousin Emily's wedding, he doen't regard you as someone he trusts to take care of his retirement savings.
Well, there's always venture capitalists. To get their attention, you generally have to really get yourself together, put together a long-term business plan, enumerate all your needs and project your earnings more or less realistically. (However, your enthusiasm would be welcome.) You have to detail exactly how you plan to succeed, and how much it will cost them to support you. If a venture capital firm gives you an appointment, it's for your presentation to them, explaining preceisely (and honestly) the status of your business and what you plan to do with it.
Venture capital firms look at your current results, which are probably rather disappointing, but they also give considerable weight to your potential, something often too ethereal for a bank to ponder. They'll want to see your facility, meet your employees, scrutinize your books. They will also probably examine your CFO (Chief Financial Offer) with a very cold and calulating eye -- Is this guy any good? What's her background and history? How long is he going to stay? Has she demonstrated good judgment and honesty regarding company funds?
If venture capitalists invest in your firm, they'll do it for equity. That is, they may give you that $5 million, but they'll want a seat on the board of directors and a percentage of your earnings -- they become a stakeholder. Often not a majority shareholder, but still and all, a stakeholder, with the right to advise, look at your books, and otherwise direct and manage your company.
Depending on the size of the investment and the needs of your company, these new investors -- the venture capitalists -- may bring in a whole raft of experts to assess and advise you. They may insist on a restructuring. They may demand that you sell off unprofitable assets, terminate or re-develop certain product lines. They may insist that you fire half your staff, pare down to the barebones and start over, pursuing another direction in the marketplace.
Of course, you can agree to this or not. Venture capitalists are not the federal -- or even state -- government. They can't force you to do anything. They can only agree or not to invest in your company. They put their cash and their business acumen on the line, and they require a profit on their investment. If your company fails, so do they. Venture capitalists are rish-takers, but they're often extremely smart and experienced, something that also can give them the appearance of ruthlessness. They're in it for the money. No apologies.
So they look at your company. Maybe you just want to sell it outright. Maybe the venture capitalists will agree to something like a buy-out, and then put their own managers in place. And maybe, if the outlook is grim and with little promise, the venture capitalists will sell your business to a larger, related corporation. Or they may decide it's time to liquidate, take their equity from the sold assets, AND THEN TAKE THAT CAPITAL AND INVEST IT IN A MORE PRODUCTIVE BUSINESS SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Not always a happy ending, but venture capitalists are most successful when you are.
Venture capitalists do what The Comrade, Geithner, and Bernanke have been trying and failing to do for the last four years. Venture capitalists look at the mess you've got and, nine out of ten times, they fix it. Or let it go -- rechanneling the assets and employees toward more profitable and productive efforts.
The difference here is, venture capitalists have considerable knowledge, experience, and a large pool of private funds to back them up. The Comrade, Geithner, and Bernanke have what? Experience rabble rousing, doling out reprimands for SEC violations (and missing Bernie Madoff, at that), and God knows what Bernanke does at the Fed. And they're playing with public funds -- tax dollars. And more often than not, they're making bad and stupid "feel-good" choices based on the fantasies of Al Gore and losing it all.
So let's hear it for the venture capitalists. Only very rich societies have them. They provide the grease that helps to turn the wheels of free enterprise. It's all about getting money and support where it's necessary, useful, and profitable.
On the other hand, when the government takes on this task, it's what Mussolini called "fascism." When government and business join foces and you no longer have much say at all in exactly what they do with your business or anyone else's -- or your money.
So tell me again about "vulture" capitalism.
Save the Republic.
The Comrade and his henchmen insist that Bain, and others like it, swoop down on unsuspecting companies, suck out all the capital and assets, and if the company remains in business, Bain then ships all the jobs overseas. Well, that's absolutely ridiculous.
What Bain actually does is offer a real boost to economic growth and stability, and if that's not possible in a given situation, they can redirect what's left of a failed venture into more productive and profitable channels. Here's what venture capitalists do:
Usually, these firms are made of up rich guys who accumulated a pile on Wall Street or in their own businesses. They very often are, legally, partnerships, or limited liability corportations with a very limited number of shareholders -- the investor-partners themselves. Partners may or may not be actively involved in the business. A lot of times, a guy will retire and take a few of his hard-earned millions, throw them in the pot of a vetnture capitalist firm, and leave it to the CEO and others there to look after.
What venture capital firms offer to potential clients is money and guidance. And venture capital firms are also known as "high-risk" investors -- so they're willing to bet a little more than most of the rest of us on companies and ideas that are usually a little too "iffy" to qualify for bank loans.
Suppose you inherited a family business. It was very successful at one time, but your dad/mom sort of sat back the last few years, you were sowing your wild oats and not interested, and your sibs pursued other careers. So now seeking some kind of stability, you agree to take over the business.
Your company has a lot of "good will" in it -- long-term and loyal customers, a reputation for fairness and quality products, and a stable or possibly growing market for your products. However, because your folks have let it slide the last few years, for you to make a success of it in 2012, you need to retool -- bring in computerized systems and retrain your workforce, possibly upgrade your building, market and advertise to break into broader markets, etc.
The thing is, over the last few years, while your parents were contemplating their retirement, a larger firm has been moving in on your traditional markets. This newer company not only has all the current, digital bells & whistles, but they're also developing newer, cheaper, more desireable products.
So there's lots of potential in your company -- in your employees' know-how and experience, customers who want to do business with you, etc. -- but you need lots of cash to bring it all up to speed and to be able to fend off an aggressive competitor.
So you go to the bank. The trouble is, your assets are outdated and your company over the last few years has looked pretty anemic in the marketplace. The bank pats you on the shoulder and wishes you the best, but, no, sorry, we need some solid collateral to back up any loans -- which your obsolescence doesn't support -- and/or you need some kind of market-leader position, which right now is in question.
So where do you go? Uncle Dave? He's also retiring and, after that unfortunate incident at Cousin Emily's wedding, he doen't regard you as someone he trusts to take care of his retirement savings.
Well, there's always venture capitalists. To get their attention, you generally have to really get yourself together, put together a long-term business plan, enumerate all your needs and project your earnings more or less realistically. (However, your enthusiasm would be welcome.) You have to detail exactly how you plan to succeed, and how much it will cost them to support you. If a venture capital firm gives you an appointment, it's for your presentation to them, explaining preceisely (and honestly) the status of your business and what you plan to do with it.
Venture capital firms look at your current results, which are probably rather disappointing, but they also give considerable weight to your potential, something often too ethereal for a bank to ponder. They'll want to see your facility, meet your employees, scrutinize your books. They will also probably examine your CFO (Chief Financial Offer) with a very cold and calulating eye -- Is this guy any good? What's her background and history? How long is he going to stay? Has she demonstrated good judgment and honesty regarding company funds?
If venture capitalists invest in your firm, they'll do it for equity. That is, they may give you that $5 million, but they'll want a seat on the board of directors and a percentage of your earnings -- they become a stakeholder. Often not a majority shareholder, but still and all, a stakeholder, with the right to advise, look at your books, and otherwise direct and manage your company.
Depending on the size of the investment and the needs of your company, these new investors -- the venture capitalists -- may bring in a whole raft of experts to assess and advise you. They may insist on a restructuring. They may demand that you sell off unprofitable assets, terminate or re-develop certain product lines. They may insist that you fire half your staff, pare down to the barebones and start over, pursuing another direction in the marketplace.
Of course, you can agree to this or not. Venture capitalists are not the federal -- or even state -- government. They can't force you to do anything. They can only agree or not to invest in your company. They put their cash and their business acumen on the line, and they require a profit on their investment. If your company fails, so do they. Venture capitalists are rish-takers, but they're often extremely smart and experienced, something that also can give them the appearance of ruthlessness. They're in it for the money. No apologies.
So they look at your company. Maybe you just want to sell it outright. Maybe the venture capitalists will agree to something like a buy-out, and then put their own managers in place. And maybe, if the outlook is grim and with little promise, the venture capitalists will sell your business to a larger, related corporation. Or they may decide it's time to liquidate, take their equity from the sold assets, AND THEN TAKE THAT CAPITAL AND INVEST IT IN A MORE PRODUCTIVE BUSINESS SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Not always a happy ending, but venture capitalists are most successful when you are.
Venture capitalists do what The Comrade, Geithner, and Bernanke have been trying and failing to do for the last four years. Venture capitalists look at the mess you've got and, nine out of ten times, they fix it. Or let it go -- rechanneling the assets and employees toward more profitable and productive efforts.
The difference here is, venture capitalists have considerable knowledge, experience, and a large pool of private funds to back them up. The Comrade, Geithner, and Bernanke have what? Experience rabble rousing, doling out reprimands for SEC violations (and missing Bernie Madoff, at that), and God knows what Bernanke does at the Fed. And they're playing with public funds -- tax dollars. And more often than not, they're making bad and stupid "feel-good" choices based on the fantasies of Al Gore and losing it all.
So let's hear it for the venture capitalists. Only very rich societies have them. They provide the grease that helps to turn the wheels of free enterprise. It's all about getting money and support where it's necessary, useful, and profitable.
On the other hand, when the government takes on this task, it's what Mussolini called "fascism." When government and business join foces and you no longer have much say at all in exactly what they do with your business or anyone else's -- or your money.
So tell me again about "vulture" capitalism.
Save the Republic.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Romney and the ankle-biters
Well, I see the 2012 presidential election campaign has already started. The Comrade, clutching desperately for some "base" of any kind, has announced that, personally, he's in favor of same-sex marriage. However, he also makes clear that this is his own personal opinion, and he apparently has no intention of doing anything about it politically. Marriage laws should be determined by the states, he says.
A perfect example of "leading from behind." That is, with no guts, commitment, or detectable usefulness. Except it seems that many of his campaign "bundlers," who collect donations for him, are gay. If they were aliens from zeta reticulii, I suppose the Comrade would quietly suggest the Air Force reopen Project Blue Book.
So, by way of contrast and comparison, somebody on the Comrade's campaign staff, working in conjuction with the Washington Post or NY Times, or some other socialist mouthpiece, dug up an incident from Mitt Romney's past. Supposedly while Romney was in prep school, he and a bunch of lugs cornered some misfit who'd dyed his hair blond, and they cut the guy's hair off.
Turns out, the guy was gay, though Romney says he doesn't remember the incident, and didn't know the guy was gay. And the guy died about 2004, so he's -- very conveniently -- not available for comment. His family released a statement saying they don't like the way he was portrayed.
So anyway, whatever yellow rag ran that story -- which was 5,000+ words, by the way, an absolutely unheard of length in this day and age -- is no doubt just now researching the several years that the Comrade shared an apartment in Harlem with a drug dealer -- a guy who, by the way, seems to still be a drug dealer. The journalists are, no doubt, looking up stories from the Comrade's past about his own use of cocaine and marijuana, and perhaps how he helped cut the coke with baby laxative and ran bags for his roommate. We can only wonder if he was involved in collections.
More realistically, we'll probably wait a long, long time for that story.
But the thing is -- is this the worst they can come up about Mitt Romney? "Boy, that Mitt Romney, he sure did some stupid things in high school."
So, seems he's human, after all.
And the Comrade enjoyed a big fundraising dinner at George Clooney's house the other night. Got to meet all the Big Stars. I suppose the Comrade promised to make them all exempt from the Tax the Rich bullshit thing.
Except for Jon Lovitz, of course, who described the Comrade as a "f***ing ***hole." Poor Lovitz probably wasn't invited to the big "do" at Clooney's. I bet he's all depressed about that... that's the ticket.
And no matter the Comrade's "personal evolution" to embrace same-sex marriage, Barney Fudd, who's recently decided to marry his boyfriend of many years -- nothing brings people closer than running an escort service from their Georgetown townhouse -- is not inviting the Comrade to the wedding.
Let me tell you one thing that has always troubled me about the Comrade. When he gets around people who applaud him -- from movie stars to the great unwashed masses -- he gets this absolutely giddy, mindless expression on his face. Hate to say it, but it's like he having an orgasm. Just watch sometime. It's scary. It's, like, well, pathological. Sort of a really dangerous narcissism. It's like he has no real self-respect, just a profound hunger for someone to pat him on the head and tickle behind his ears. How much is he willing to sell out to gratify that neurosis?
I'm starting to really like Mitt Romney. Not just in the spirit of "anybody but Obama," but because I think Romney really is a decent, dedicated person who has a functioning brain. He doesn't seem too perturbed about the "ankle-biters" buzzing and stinging like swamp vermin looking for a place to attach and suck some blood. And Romney shouldn't pay attention to this silly crap, anyway. Because it is silly crap.
The campaign so far isn't vicious so much as juvenile.
Enough for now.
Save the Republic.
A perfect example of "leading from behind." That is, with no guts, commitment, or detectable usefulness. Except it seems that many of his campaign "bundlers," who collect donations for him, are gay. If they were aliens from zeta reticulii, I suppose the Comrade would quietly suggest the Air Force reopen Project Blue Book.
So, by way of contrast and comparison, somebody on the Comrade's campaign staff, working in conjuction with the Washington Post or NY Times, or some other socialist mouthpiece, dug up an incident from Mitt Romney's past. Supposedly while Romney was in prep school, he and a bunch of lugs cornered some misfit who'd dyed his hair blond, and they cut the guy's hair off.
Turns out, the guy was gay, though Romney says he doesn't remember the incident, and didn't know the guy was gay. And the guy died about 2004, so he's -- very conveniently -- not available for comment. His family released a statement saying they don't like the way he was portrayed.
So anyway, whatever yellow rag ran that story -- which was 5,000+ words, by the way, an absolutely unheard of length in this day and age -- is no doubt just now researching the several years that the Comrade shared an apartment in Harlem with a drug dealer -- a guy who, by the way, seems to still be a drug dealer. The journalists are, no doubt, looking up stories from the Comrade's past about his own use of cocaine and marijuana, and perhaps how he helped cut the coke with baby laxative and ran bags for his roommate. We can only wonder if he was involved in collections.
More realistically, we'll probably wait a long, long time for that story.
But the thing is -- is this the worst they can come up about Mitt Romney? "Boy, that Mitt Romney, he sure did some stupid things in high school."
So, seems he's human, after all.
And the Comrade enjoyed a big fundraising dinner at George Clooney's house the other night. Got to meet all the Big Stars. I suppose the Comrade promised to make them all exempt from the Tax the Rich bullshit thing.
Except for Jon Lovitz, of course, who described the Comrade as a "f***ing ***hole." Poor Lovitz probably wasn't invited to the big "do" at Clooney's. I bet he's all depressed about that... that's the ticket.
And no matter the Comrade's "personal evolution" to embrace same-sex marriage, Barney Fudd, who's recently decided to marry his boyfriend of many years -- nothing brings people closer than running an escort service from their Georgetown townhouse -- is not inviting the Comrade to the wedding.
Let me tell you one thing that has always troubled me about the Comrade. When he gets around people who applaud him -- from movie stars to the great unwashed masses -- he gets this absolutely giddy, mindless expression on his face. Hate to say it, but it's like he having an orgasm. Just watch sometime. It's scary. It's, like, well, pathological. Sort of a really dangerous narcissism. It's like he has no real self-respect, just a profound hunger for someone to pat him on the head and tickle behind his ears. How much is he willing to sell out to gratify that neurosis?
I'm starting to really like Mitt Romney. Not just in the spirit of "anybody but Obama," but because I think Romney really is a decent, dedicated person who has a functioning brain. He doesn't seem too perturbed about the "ankle-biters" buzzing and stinging like swamp vermin looking for a place to attach and suck some blood. And Romney shouldn't pay attention to this silly crap, anyway. Because it is silly crap.
The campaign so far isn't vicious so much as juvenile.
Enough for now.
Save the Republic.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
The man who shot Osama bn Laden
Well, busy day, May 1. OWies on parade all over the USA. Apparently comfortable in the belief that he'd left his marxists peeps in control, the Comrade flew to Afghanistan.
I'll just say that it makes me uncomfortable to see the Comrade overseas. God only knows what he's getting us into. He seems to have signed some kind of agreement with some Afghani official. Haven't seen the details, but congress has to approve treaties, etc. And the Taliban blew up a marketplace in Kabul to celebrate the whole event.
So what's the deal, anyway? The Comrade actually flying halfway around the world to remind US voters that he gave the OK to kill Osama bn Ladn. And/or does he think the war in Afghanistan is popular?
Nothing for days from the White House except how the Comrade was behind the assassination of Osama bn Laden. The DNC or somebody even put out a little video, featuring "Can't Keep It Zipped" Bill Clinton lavishing all kinds of praise on the Comrade for this. Clinton himself, over-rated halfwit that he is, had two chances to kill bn Laden -- before 9/11 -- and Clinton choked both times. So no wonder he marvels at the Comrade's "courage." Clinton has so little himself.
And Joe Biden, his expression like that of the annoying drunk who sits next to you in a bar and claims to tell you "the truth" about the moon landing, yacks about how great the Comrade is for approving the killing of bn Laden. Even though, at the time it was going down, Biden advised the Comrade NOT to do it. Biden also insinuated that Mitt Romney wouldn't have done it. Which is just a stupid comment, but sort of predictable, since it's from Biden.
The democrats are such monumental hypocrites it's almost funny.
But at least the Comrade found something to run on. Although many pundits have found it "unseemly" to self-congratulate for killing somone -- even bn Laden.
I think the whole thing is kind of pathetic. Comrade living on borrowed glory he snatches from the Navy Seals -- because the Comrade actually has not accomplished one other thing that the public approves of.
We only have to deal with the crap for a few more months.
Save the Republic.
I'll just say that it makes me uncomfortable to see the Comrade overseas. God only knows what he's getting us into. He seems to have signed some kind of agreement with some Afghani official. Haven't seen the details, but congress has to approve treaties, etc. And the Taliban blew up a marketplace in Kabul to celebrate the whole event.
So what's the deal, anyway? The Comrade actually flying halfway around the world to remind US voters that he gave the OK to kill Osama bn Ladn. And/or does he think the war in Afghanistan is popular?
Nothing for days from the White House except how the Comrade was behind the assassination of Osama bn Laden. The DNC or somebody even put out a little video, featuring "Can't Keep It Zipped" Bill Clinton lavishing all kinds of praise on the Comrade for this. Clinton himself, over-rated halfwit that he is, had two chances to kill bn Laden -- before 9/11 -- and Clinton choked both times. So no wonder he marvels at the Comrade's "courage." Clinton has so little himself.
And Joe Biden, his expression like that of the annoying drunk who sits next to you in a bar and claims to tell you "the truth" about the moon landing, yacks about how great the Comrade is for approving the killing of bn Laden. Even though, at the time it was going down, Biden advised the Comrade NOT to do it. Biden also insinuated that Mitt Romney wouldn't have done it. Which is just a stupid comment, but sort of predictable, since it's from Biden.
The democrats are such monumental hypocrites it's almost funny.
But at least the Comrade found something to run on. Although many pundits have found it "unseemly" to self-congratulate for killing somone -- even bn Laden.
I think the whole thing is kind of pathetic. Comrade living on borrowed glory he snatches from the Navy Seals -- because the Comrade actually has not accomplished one other thing that the public approves of.
We only have to deal with the crap for a few more months.
Save the Republic.
May Day, m'aidez
Yesterday was the first of May, traditionally a day of celebration for marxists all over the world. It was on May Day in the old USSR that authorities would have a huge parade, soldiers marching in strict lockstep, accompanied by tanks and missilles on trucks. The current authoritarian dictator would stand on a balcony of the Kremlin. Some stern-faced and committed, others more friendly. It was always a big show.
So, figures, May Day was the day designated for OWie demonstrations across the country. A group of self-identified OWies (and is there any other kind?) apparently had plans to blow up a bridge in Ohio. In Oakland, Seattle, Portland, and perhaps some other places, they smashed store windows, threw bricks and other debris at each other, even lobbed a few molotov cocktails, and in other ways vandalized commercial areas. In New York, apart from screwing up traffic, they sent bags of white powder to bank execs. The powder turned out to be corn starch. Otherwise, the OWies just made general public nuisances of themselves.
I still don't understand what they're whining about Honestly, what are they protesting? Just a general, "Man, life really sucks." What?? Like a two-year-old having a temper fit? What??
Apparently they were joined/supported by labor unions. What are the unions whining about? They're "Comrade's Pet." Why are they complaining? No work? Hey, union dudes, pull a few strings, get fat-ass Trumpka and butthead Hoffa Jr. to get the Comrade to release his chokehold on the Keystone Pipeline. The work is there, just Washington being anal-retentive.
Honestly, I don't get it. Exactly what "message" am I supposed to be receiving? Because all I'm getting out of this is that there are quite a few rather stupid and easly-led people who want to get on the TV news. They appear to have rather poor impulse control. Other than that, I don't know.
OK, so there's May Day -- first day of May. Then there's m'aidez -- which is French for "Help me." Both are pronounced like "may day." It's the second that serves as a desperate, last-minute communication sent by ships at sea who find themselves in trouble.
So this message from the OWies is probably fitting. They seem to need all the help they can get -- hope they find other-than-tax-payers to fund it.
Or maybe for the next couple days, they should just go sit in the corner.
Save the Republic.
So, figures, May Day was the day designated for OWie demonstrations across the country. A group of self-identified OWies (and is there any other kind?) apparently had plans to blow up a bridge in Ohio. In Oakland, Seattle, Portland, and perhaps some other places, they smashed store windows, threw bricks and other debris at each other, even lobbed a few molotov cocktails, and in other ways vandalized commercial areas. In New York, apart from screwing up traffic, they sent bags of white powder to bank execs. The powder turned out to be corn starch. Otherwise, the OWies just made general public nuisances of themselves.
I still don't understand what they're whining about Honestly, what are they protesting? Just a general, "Man, life really sucks." What?? Like a two-year-old having a temper fit? What??
Apparently they were joined/supported by labor unions. What are the unions whining about? They're "Comrade's Pet." Why are they complaining? No work? Hey, union dudes, pull a few strings, get fat-ass Trumpka and butthead Hoffa Jr. to get the Comrade to release his chokehold on the Keystone Pipeline. The work is there, just Washington being anal-retentive.
Honestly, I don't get it. Exactly what "message" am I supposed to be receiving? Because all I'm getting out of this is that there are quite a few rather stupid and easly-led people who want to get on the TV news. They appear to have rather poor impulse control. Other than that, I don't know.
OK, so there's May Day -- first day of May. Then there's m'aidez -- which is French for "Help me." Both are pronounced like "may day." It's the second that serves as a desperate, last-minute communication sent by ships at sea who find themselves in trouble.
So this message from the OWies is probably fitting. They seem to need all the help they can get -- hope they find other-than-tax-payers to fund it.
Or maybe for the next couple days, they should just go sit in the corner.
Save the Republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)