Thank you KIDROCK.

[Clayton_Wetter]

And the non specificic BS is in the Tailgate section! The most opinionated site in the universe, ya know!!

[LITE-INN]

yeah right clayton

[LITE-INN]

http://www.realville-usa.com/

[Clayton_Wetter]

For those that don't open that webite. vvvvvvvvv

My sons are getting about the age where they've started asking me about the differences between liberals and conservatives, so I guess I should start a list...

- If you're committed to women's rights, but unconcerned about the females that are aborted every day, you're probably a liberal.

- If you think the world needs better solutions to problems like hunger and disease, but you think capitalist companies should be raped and pillaged, you're probably a liberal.

- If you despise bullies who use intimidation and threats to get their way, but support the Palestinians, you're probably a liberal.

- If you think dunking a crucifix in pee is art that should be protected as free speech, but conservative talk shows need to be pulled off the air, you're probably a liberal.

- If you're deeply committed to nonviolence, but think (insert Republican name here)'s a scumsucking pig who should be shot like a dog in the streets, you're probably a liberal.

- If you think it's wrong that companies are sending jobs overseas, but you fully support unions, you're probably a liberal.

- If you're concerned about fundamentalist Christians imposing their religion on you, but unconcerned about fundamentalist Muslims imposing their religion on you, you're probably a liberal.

- If you think George W. Bush was a worse President than George H.W. Bush, you're probably a liberal.

Feel free to add more...
Posted 20th November 2012 by Ombud

0 Add a comment
NOV
16
Union Sticks It to Hostess and Leaves Workers Jobless

I guess there was a time when unions did some good. I know my great grandfather was a big supporter of them, but frankly I can't see where they do anything good at all anymore. From the time I was a kid, all I've ever understood about them was that they're associated with organized crime, and they're physically violent and proud of it. But over the last couple of years I've learned a little bit more, and I have to say I'm not at all enthusiastic about what I've seen.

First it was SEIU union thugs tossing beatdowns at TEA Partiers, and Democrat Congressmen letting them shout down citizens at constituent forums. Then it was the teacher's union in Wisconsin, trashing their statehouse and generally acting like a bunch of lawless creeps who I wouldn't trust with my children for a minute. Now it's a union killing their own employer and one of America's most ubiquitous brands.

The last couple of days I kept hearing about how Hostess management said they would be forced to cease operations and liquidate the company's assets if the union wouldn't agree to an 8% pay cut. I figured it would be like most other labor disputes, with brinksmanship being tempered by the obvious reality that the workers would be better off with a job than with nothing at all.

But I was wrong. The unions decided to let their last hope of saving anyone's jobs go, and now the company looks like they'll be liquidated, and every single employee will lose their job. Amazing. Stating that the company doesn't have the resources to weather an extended strike, Hostess CEO Gregory Rayburn announced today that everyone's losing their jobs, and the company's assets will be sold. Big win for the union, I guess, but it's a huge loss for the 18,000 workers. Correction. Ex-workers.

The most mystifying thing about is that most likely Twinkies and Ding-Dongs and their related products will survive. The product brands will be sold, and we probably won't have to suffer any type of interruption in our Twinkie supply, thank God. The ownership will get screwed, of course, having to sell the brands for whatever they can get. But the biggest losers are the workers. With unemployment at 8% and likely to go higher based on all the layoff announcements I've seen the past couple of weeks, how many of these workers do you ecpect to find jobs at all, much less better jobs?


To everyone's great relief, the union bigwigs who caused it all will be ok. None of them are likely to lose their jobs, and they'll no doubt prance on, free to create more suffering at whatever lucky company gets to host their next shakedown. I wonder how many of the people in that picture up top had any idea how successful they'd be at "sticking it to the man?" Somehow I doubt this is the outcome the workers wanted.

I 'm not sure why they rejected the deal, but I have to wonder if the union bigwigs feel like their workers are somehow better off with another 18,000 of them out of work. Was it a win for the union? I guess that depends on whether they're mission is to help the workers, or to destroy the companies. They DID manage to turn an 8% pay cut into a 100% pay cut. So I guess that's something. Maybe they'll realize that the workers lost, but the bigwigs got what they wanted. I'm sure Cloward and Piven would be very pleased. (HT Clear Case Guy)
Posted 16th November 2012 by Ombud

1 View comments
NOV
15
PA, OH Job Losses Don't Hurt Rich People
Pennsylvania and Ohio were two states the GOP thought they could win last week. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan crisscrossed both states over and over until it seemed endless. They drew some pretty big crowds, too. No matter, both states were confirmed Obama territory within hours of the polls closing, and many economically disadvantaged districts voted near-unanimously for a second Obama term.

I guess you could call today's jobless numbers poetic justice for all the voters who feel like they can vote a standard of living for themselves that they're unwilling to earn. Well, there's 14,000 newly jobless this week in those two states, so those people should expect the lines to be a bit longer. Those people are probably wondering what the future holds for them right now. No doubt the Obama administration just sees that as an opportunity to hav+e more voters dependent on the government, and, therefore, to own more votes.

The people in Ohio and Pennsylvania who I feel worst for, though, are the ones who actually want their economy to work. The workers who want opportunities to provide for their families, and the small business owners struggling unable to hire because of oppressive government policies. But clueless Harry Reid and the DC Dems are quite certain that regulation doesn't cost any jobs.

Here's the kicker - it isn't going to get any better anytime soon. Obama and the Democrats in DC don't seem to have a clue about what makes business work, or how or why private businesses create jobs. You see the folly of their approach in the mass failure of stimulus funded projects. Remaking an economy isn't easy. And remaking an economy based on a hoax is even more of a challenge.. to the point where it's doomed to fail. Entry-level jobs are drying up all over. Papa John's, Red Lobster, and other restaurants are cutting employee hours. Heck, some Denny's are even adding a 5% Obamacare surcharge on their checks. Without entry-level jobs, how does someone get the experience and skill set to get a better job?

A lot of people voted for a second Obama term because they thought Democrats care about the little guy. I have a question for those people. Who gets hurt by entry level jobs drying up? Who gets hurt when waiters and cooks are having their hours slashed? If it's not the little guy, then who, exactly?
Posted 15th November 2012 by Ombud

2 View comments
NOV
15
Global Warming: It's Time to Panic
Originally published at BlogCritics.

Oh no. Global warming's on the move again.

You heard me right. Our President told us so today. When he was asked about NYC Mayor Michael "Nanny" Bloomberg's belief that Obama would do more to fight global warming, Obama made it clear he'd hold up his end of that bargain. In fact, he went so far as to say that temperatures are rising even faster than predicted just ten years ago. Here's what he said, verbatim,

"I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions.” “You know, as you know, Mark, we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change. What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. We do know that the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than was predicted even five years ago. We do know that there have been extraordinarily — there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe.” “And I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions. And as a consequence, I think we’ve got an obligation to future generations to do something about it."

Yikes. Remember when Ted Danson was telling us the oceans would be dead in ten years if we didn't do something to stop global warming? Well, apparently, things are getting bad even faster than that. Bummer. And only a few weeks after that study that showed how global temperatures stopped rising 16 years ago. If you live near a coast, I hope you have a go bag ready. I hope you're not shrugging this off, because this could be very serious indeed.

While the rest of us busy ourselves by purchasing durable bicycles, protesting energy exploration in North America, and making compost heaps in our backyards with all the stuff we can't flush down our low-flow toilets, President Obama and his team will be working hard to do their part by making sure none of us are using the wrong light bulbs or flushing too much water.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Most importantly, President Obama and his team of crackerjack government specialists will be making another round of enormous "investments" of taxpayer money into the sort of green technology companies that can play a part in saving the world from this entirely foreseeable, human-caused disaster.

The world needs successful green tech companies, now more than ever. The stimulus-funded green companies from Obama's first administration will act as a great roadmap to how to do it. There was only one problem with those state of the art, cutting-edge innovators. They all failed in the free market. (not a nice word)(not a nice word)(not a nice word)(not a nice word) that free market. Now we'll have to do something about that, too.

There's obviously a lot of work to be done here, so I suggest we split the labor. I'll work on using your tax dollars manipulating and rigging the markets, while you go work in the compost heap.

Posted 15th November 2012 by Ombud

0 Add a comment
NOV
14
The Great Election Robbery of 2012?

While Mitt Romney encourages the more bellicose wing of his party to temper their partisan positions, and while Speaker John Boehner tells GOP legislators to get in line and get ready to compromise, and while the GOP-elite spin machine prepares to unleash an unprecedented campaign of Hispandering in a last-ditch effort to save the party from the demographic cliff, the conservative blogosphere is buzzing with stories about voter fraud. Claims are being made that Obama's GOTV apparatus was really a sophisticated fraud designed to steal the election.

There's no doubt Democrats engaged in fraudulent actions; there've been 52 arrests so far. Heck, Democrat Rep. James Moran's son resigned over a video of him coaching voters on how to commit election fraud. The question is whether it's possible that there could have been enough fraud to swing the election. Presidential elections are decided by electoral votes, and the nature of that system makes it highly unlikely that fraud in any one district, city, region, or even state would have much of an impact on the results.

In order to pull off such a caper, one would require a sophisticated, well-funded operation capable of targeting districts in multiple states and key neighborhoods in swing states. One might need the entire vote total in some districts - like the 59 precincts in Philadelphia where Romney didn't get a single vote. Nothing helps fraud like privacy, so it might help if you can physically remove the opposition party's poll watchers, like Democrat operatives did in some Philly wards. If you can do that, you can get voter turnout to 90-95% in transient neighborhoods, by having operatives vote over and over using names of people who've moved or died and are still registered. That's how you can win a state despite losing 55 of 67 counties.

But that's just one swing state. There are other swing states, and that protects us, right? I mean, you can't commit fraud en masse and not have anyone notice, right?

In Ohio, voters were told when they went to vote that they'd already voted, and two election judges were removed for allowing unregistered voters to cast ballots. But what do you expect in a state where more than 20% of registered voters shouldn't be? There were even reports of Somalis being bused to polls to vote illegally. No wonder people are being criminally charged there.

In Florida, large amounts of illegal aliens voted, and the military members found themselves unable to vote. In Allen West's district, entire boxes of military votes were found uncounted.

Those states aren't the only ones with reports of fraud and intimidation. When you look at the areas where fraud is alleged, a pattern emerges. Key districts were targeted in swing states, and operatives did whatever they felt they needed to do to deliver those states to Obama. The sheer size and scope of the fraud is unprecedented, but then the level of media adoration for Obama is unprecedented as well. Also unprecedented are the forces that direct Obama. We know George Soros, Obama's sugar daddy, instructed him to spare no effort to engineer victory, and it looks like it's entirely possible Obama did exactly that.

It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry won a race in middle school by getting a head start. Just like Jerry, Obama expects to get away with it, because he'll never have to race again.