This is BeanerECMO's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following BeanerECMO's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
BeanerECMO
Recent Activity
Remember, it is not his "Birth Certificate"; this is the 'long form' of the 'Certificate of Live Birth'. Further, do people realize the ramifications of the issue? I mean that's what the dems always contend, "It's the seriousness of the charge. (Whether there are any facts to back the charge or not; e.g., CBS's forged documents)". Anyway, if it's proven that he wasn't born in the States or one of its territories, then all Executive Orders, laws (appropriations and authorizations), orders sending troops into battle, etc. signed by him are null and void. Now, is that a constitutional crisis, or what?________________________________________ I was a regressive (aka liberal progressive) until I learned to read, got a job and was mugged by willful tax and spend regressives and acolytes; i.e., unions.
No, he has not stopped blaming Bush. Just prior to his latest vacation at a fund raiser, he exhorted the gathering with, "They hope you have amnesia. They hope you have forgotten the previous 8 years." Please note that jobless numbers started increasing and the DOW, S&P etc. started their downward plunge as soon as the dems were voted in in 2006 and took over congress in 2007. I'm sure it was just a coincidence, though.
1 reply
It is unfortunate that the former Marines that were standing up for (being used by) Bleumanthal din't know the number of times that he said he served in Viet Nam - it wasn't just once; it was upawards of 8 different times. And, then he has the temerity to blame the media for reporting on his "Mis-statements".
1 reply
Does anyone find the sad irony of a Jew wanting a person to be a dictator? But, then it is Hollywood, and we should all bow to the vast knowledge and wisdom that abounds in this center for intellectual achievement.
1 reply
Could CB instigate anything to try to cause conflict; to wit: CB: Your boyfriend Andreas is your caddie. Does this ever create a conflict? Ever say, "Honey, if you mis-read one more putt, you're so dumped"? BR: [Laughs] No, we work well together. With another caddie, you don't know if you're getting their best effort, but I know he's trying his hardest. CB: Do you pay him? BR: Of course. It's his time, so he gets paid. CB: When he takes you out to Olive Garden, do you say, "Thanks, but this is really my money"? BR: No! I guess I am his boss, but we're a partnership. We work great together. Fortunately, BR is much more mature.
Toggle Commented Mar 14, 2010 on The Spain event: Beatriz Recari at Flyers
Of course, no one will notice the irony.
1 reply
There is being deferential, then there is being subservient. A slight bow to a non-head-of-state is adequate. Was this bow even lower than the bow he gave to the Japanese PM? Probably not. However, Obama is the Clown-in-Chief.
1 reply
Just as it is now, he was first and foremost a social welfare collectivist. He did not believe in a hand up; only a handout, and made sure that those who were on the receiving end of his largess (of taxpayer money) knew and remembered who was filling the trough.
My condolences to his family. He was a leader; he was not a great leader. Remember, Camelot was a fictitious place.
I did not give credit to the anonymous writer of the above, and I should have (unlike Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden - or Barack Hussein Obama for that matter). If I could find the author of the above, I would give the writer the proper credit.
1 reply
It's not stick, it's schtick (Yiddish: שטיק). But, no mind. There is a lot of work to do and it's not to be done with bailouts for the friends of Chris Dodd , Barney Frank, Kent Conrad, (all who blocked attempts by McCain and the WH to institute stricter oversight of the financial markets) Hank Paulson et al. Confidence in the system has to be restored, but not by giving more funds to the mismanagers who got us there with the help of Frank Raines and Jim Johnson. With both Barack Obama's supporters and the media looking forward to the new administration's policies being similar to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's policies during the 1930s depression, it may be useful to look at just what those policies were and — more important — what their consequences were. The prevailing view in many quarters is that the stock market crash of 1929 was a failure of the free market that led to massive unemployment in the 1930s — and that it was intervention of Roosevelt's New Deal policies that rescued the economy. It is such a good story that it seems a pity to spoil it with facts. Yet there is something to be said for not repeating the catastrophes of the past. Let's start at square one, with the stock market crash in October 1929. Was this what led to massive unemployment? Official government statistics suggest otherwise. So do new statistics on unemployment by two current scholars, Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway, in their book "Out of Work." The Vedder and Gallaway statistics allow us to follow unemployment month by month. They put the unemployment rate at 5 percent in November 1929, a month after the stock market crash. It hit 9 percent in December — but then began a generally downward trend, subsiding to 6.3 percent in June 1930. That was when the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were passed, against the advice of economists across the country, who warned of dire consequences. Five months after the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, the unemployment rate hit double digits for the first time in the 1930s. This was more than a year after the stock market crash. Moreover, the unemployment rate rose to even higher levels under both Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt, both of whom intervened in the economy on an unprecedented scale. Before the Great Depression, it was not considered to be the business of the federal government to try to get the economy out of a depression. But the Smoot-Hawley tariff — designed to save American jobs by restricting imports — was one of Hoover's interventions, followed by even bigger interventions by FDR. The rise in unemployment after the stock market crash of 1929 was a blip on the screen compared to the soaring unemployment rates reached later, after a series of government interventions. For nearly three consecutive years, beginning in February 1932, the unemployment rate never fell below 20 percent for any month before January 1935, when it fell to 19.3 percent, according to the Vedder and Gallaway statistics. In other words, the evidence suggests that it was not the "problem" of the financial crisis in 1929 that caused massive unemployment but politicians' attempted "solutions." Is that the history that we seem to be ready to repeat? The stock market crash, which has been blamed for the widespread suffering during the Great Depression of the 1930s, created no unemployment rate that was even half of what was created in the wake of the government interventions of Hoover and FDR. Politically, however, Franklin D. Roosevelt could not have been more successful. After all, he was the only President of the United States elected four times in a row. He was a master of political rhetoric. If Barack Obama wants political success, following in the footsteps of FDR looks like the way to go. But people who are concerned about the economy need to take a closer look at history. We deserve something better than repeating the 1930s disasters. There is yet another factor that provides a parallel to what happened during the Great Depression. No matter how much worse things got after government intervention under Roosevelt's New Deal policies, the party line was that he had to "do something" to get us out of the disaster created by the failure of the unregulated market and Hoover's "do nothing" policies. Today, increasing numbers of scholars recognize that FDR's own policies were a further extension of interventions begun under Hoover. Moreover, the temporary rise in unemployment after the stock market crash was nowhere near the massive and long-lasting unemployment after government interventions. Barack Obama already has his Herbert Hoover to blame for any and all disasters that his policies create: George W. Bush.
1 reply
Yes, the LAT was meant as an insult - they were supporting the "It's My Turn" candidate, and then the tide kept turning. Get over the PC of it all. This is quite mild compared to what has already been said in this blog, and you have the safety provided by those of us who have ensured it for America and others around the world. I'll grant that many in the RNC are dinosaurs as well as RINOs, they aren't conservative in their values or their actions, just like Robert Bird, Albert Arnold Gore (Al's dad) are true to their liberal values, but then neither is BHO - Marxism is not liberalism. Have any of you worked with these clowns on Capitol Hill? I have as a Legislative Fellow. Once they are in, it's about them, not about the people. Besides, when has BHO's character really been examined without the comeback that any question of his character is racist? When was the question asked of BHO of how can he devote the time to his children when he becomes president? But, being part of the unwashed, non-ivy league educated, I'm at at a clear disadvantage to those who have trod those hallowed halls and have been the leaders in our system that has gotten us to where we are. I haven't had the time to really have the mores of L' Acadeime des Liberal ingrained in me while I on watch for 26 years. Rest well, I have been relieved and others are on watch now who are too busy providing the warm blanket of security under which hundreds of millions can comfortably rest and carry on the their kibitzing.
1 reply
It started with the LAT editorial and no liberal batted eye. Look at the blogs and cartoons that seriously trashed Condoleezza and no liberal batted an eye. I guess when something the least bit untoward is said about the lord god bho, one must get in a lather much like the lather over the Danish-run cartoon.
1 reply