In any event, we here at Climate Audit are always eager to assist NASA. On earlier occasions, we helped identify the lost city of Wellington, New Zealand, where NASA has been unable to locate climate records for nearly 30 years
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
11/11/2008 15:44 Comments ||
It wasn't NASA's fault that the data were wrong. It is NASA's fault, though, that they didn't catch such a glaring anomaly and look into it before they published their graph showing this October to be the hottest month in eleventy billion years.
The data are provided by NOAA. NOAA's raw data files are good, they don't have any errors in the daily temperatures. The data are then fed into a program that calculates a monthly mean for each station. Somehow during that process, some stations retained their September values for October. NOAA didn't catch it, I am guessing because they hadn't tried to use that data for anything yet.
Hansen, over at NASA, grabbed that bad data and fed it into his temperature adjuster. Out popped "unprecedented" October warming and he ran with it posting the graphics and the data on the website (with a measure of glee, probably).
It isn't just Russian temperatures that this happened to. Some areas of Eastern Europe and Ireland also saw September values where there should have been October values.
What is surprising is that he wouldn't have said to himself "hmm, something must be wrong here". Since the data validated his belief that we are going to burn ourselves up with CO2 (notwithstanding the fact that there hasn't been any recorded warming in 10 years) they published it.
They have since taken the data off the site but the graphics remain. It will be interesting to see how many newspapers carry the story of how hot October was.
They're comfortable with ceding power to the Judiciary on a regular basis, so why not? Just watch them go moonbat again when someone else gets their hands on more power they allow to be concentrated in such an Executive.
We'll find out tonight, when the Arizona Republican appears on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno. In the week since the election, Mr. McCain's campaign team has leaked some nasty stuff about Sarah Palin. These leaks are personal, and they speak more to the character of Mr. McCain and the leakers than they do to Mrs. Palin. So it will be telling if Mr. McCain stands up for his partner and says how offended he has been by what some of his staffers have done to her.
Two weeks or so before the campaign was over, the first round of McCain campaign rumors alleged that Mrs. Palin was a "whack job," and characterized her clothes-shopping as "hillbillies looting Neiman-Marcus from coast to coast." More recently, she has been alleged to know as little about geography as Barack Obama knows about the number of states in the union (at one point, he put it at 57).
The unmistakable message here has nothing to do with Africa, the North American Free Trade Agreement or bathrobes. It is the campaign team's cry, "It's not our fault. How could we ever win with this woman on the ticket?"
The first point to make here is the most obvious: This is the language of losers. . . . The apparent eagerness of Team McCain to indulge in this kind of fingerpointing is similarly unprofessional, and it raises an interesting question.
We are asked to believe that Mrs. Palin was not ready for a national campaign. On what evidence from any part of this election are we to conclude that anyone on the McCain campaign team was ready for a national campaign? . . .
Yet there are other, more salient points. In the treatment of Mrs. Palin by some of the McCain staff, there is the clear whiff of condescension. That's something a sitting American governor might understandably find hard to stomach coming from a bunch of young professional Republicans who have never themselves run for office.
Ultimately, of course, this will all pass. And if Mrs. Palin goes back and continues to do a good job as governor of Alaska, these attacks will likely only reinforce her outside-the-Beltway credentials to rank-and-file Republicans.
Let's remember too that the only time Mr. McCain surged ahead -- in the polls, in the volunteers, in the mojo -- was when he picked Mrs. Palin. Before that he and his staff had been flying solo, and they were losing. When the contest returned to the top of the ticket, as presidential campaigns inevitably do, Mr. McCain and his team drove their lead into the ground.
It wasn't Mrs. Palin who dramatically flew to Washington promising a legislative answer to the most important economic issue of our day -- and then, in the words of a New York Times campaign profile, "came off more like a stymied bystander than a leader who could make a difference."
And what does it say when the campaign team of a man who has spent decades in the U.S. Senate cannot agree on (much less present) a coherent answer to why he should be elected president of the United States -- except that he's not Barack Obama?
In Mr. McCain's moving concession speech, he wished "godspeed to the man who was my former opponent and will be my president." He asked his fellow Americans to join him in helping President-elect Obama bridge our differences and build a better, more hopeful nation.
It will be instructive to see whether Mr. McCain will now extend the same level of graciousness to Mrs. Palin that he has to Mr. Obama, by giving a public slapdown to the very public smears emanating from his own campaign team. We have no idea what Mr. McCain will do when he sits down with Mr. Leno tonight.
But there's no doubt what a man of honor would do.
I have worn a copper McCain "POW" bracelet all throught the campaign in a v-e-r-y hostile environment. If he wimps out on Ms. Palin, the only reason he wasn't doing a post-election "Mondale Dance", I shall return it to him......
McCain is not the graceful old grandpa type. Hes about McCain and only McCain. What kind of primadona needs to keep working and getting press at 74 yrs old? What kind of primadona trys running for pres 3 times? What kind of primadona has to mutter "My Friends" in every other sentence.
Where were all the veteran organizations supporting McCain during the campaign? They know what he is made of and they stayed away from him.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
11/11/2008 11:13 Comments ||
We have no idea what Mr. McCain will do when he sits down with Mr. Leno tonight.
But there's no doubt what a man of honor would do.
I think I know what a man of honor would do. I'd like to think a man of honor would have done it long before now.
These leaks ... speak more to the character of Mr. McCain and the leakers than they do to Mrs. Palin. Amen. McCain would have had one less vote and a few less dollars if it hadn't been for Gov. Palin on the ticket.
I was convinced a long time ago that John "Where's the camera" McCain was a publicity freak. Maybe his ego is bent because Sarah drew bigger crowds than McCain. He had to keep bringing her back for joint appearances so the contrast of his crowds to hers when she went solo didn't look so bad.
I got tired of hearing him say "reaching across the aisle" ad nauseum. How about a hand for someone on the same side of the aisle.
I hope I'm wrong and he'll do the right thing by Sarah. He's already left her twisting in the wind too long.
But I kept getting the feeling during the campaign that McCain knew he was toast and didn't want to say anything that could spoil his bipartisan image.
The American people have spoken, and whatever our personal preferences, our duty as citizens is to support our next president. And he's going to need support: The international vultures are already circling.
Immediately upon his inauguration, President Obama will have to demonstrate to allies and enemies alike that he won't be a pushover. Justified or not, the international perception of Obama is that he'll be both passive and a pacifist.
He's going to have to show some Southside Chicago street grit. Fast.
Our enemies haven't wasted any time. The day after our election, President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia, speaking for Vladimir Putin, gave a Gucci-loafer version of Premier Nikita Krushchev's shoe-heel-on-the-podium rant of a half-century ago.
In a direct challenge to our president-elect, Medvedev announced that Russia would deploy its latest-generation battlefield missiles to the Kaliningrad exclave between Lithuania and Poland. The Russian president made it clear that the target would be the US ballistic-missile interceptors to be based on Polish soil.
Medvedev's speech then elaborated on the Putin Doctrine: Russia will do what it wants, when it wants, where it wants in the territories that once belonged to the czars.
A day later, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran played good cop to the Russian bad cop, inviting the new US administration to enter direct talks with Tehran. Now, negotiations can be useful - but only when conducted from a position of strength. Unfortunately, the Iranians view our election results as reflecting a greatly weakened American will.
They assess Obama as the perfect patsy, a man who believes in his own powers of persuasion. Drawing out fruitless talks year after year has been Iran's primary technique to protect its pursuit of nukes. Persians are brilliant negotiators. Their position is always, "Well, we might sleep with you . . . next time . . . if you just give us one more present . . ."
And we rush off to Tiffany & Co.
Only the Chinese come close to the Iranian genius for castrating opponents under the negotiating table. Of course, our European allies show up already missing key parts.
By the end of last week, even the Iraqis had swooped down for a bite of roadkill. Brushing President Bush aside (as the Russians, Iranians, Venezuelans and others already have done), Iraqi representatives working on the status-of-forces agreement for our troop presence balked at the previously agreed terms, expecting a better deal from an Obama administration.
Color me unimpressed. You bastards that elected this jerk, you support him. I'm on vacation for the next four years. If we get hit by terrorist enemies, the people who should be punished are the damned fools that voted for a man who couldn't get a low-level security clearance. They're the ones who put us in this situation.
Now it's our duty as citizens to support the president. For the last 8 years it has been our duty to fecklessly whine and cry about every move the president has made, to reveal classified plans, to protest outside his ranch, to do all sorts of asinine things. But now its time to support him, yeah, sure.
I was hoping the cult of adulation would melt away once he was elected, but I can see that it still lives. Someone please cut off its head and bury it in the back yard.
The non-stop media circle-jerk ever since the election is a clue of what to expect for the next 4 to 8 years. I don't see any reason to give this 21st-century Chauncey Gardener my unconditional support. I plan to begin my subscription to the position that vocal, insulting, and unreasoning dissent is the most patriotic activity possible. "Our new president-elect is a miserable idiotic racist! Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!"
Get back to me in a few months with how well supporting The One is working out for you. I'll be on vacation but I'll drop in here to find out how you're doing. I'll wish you good luck in your effort; I strongly suspect you'll need it to avoid an ulcer.
Unlike Michael Moore or Harry Reid and the rest of the motherfucking Democrat Party, I'm not about to side with my country's enemies against my domestic political opponents. In any conflict between the USA and China or Russia or Iran, I have no problem being on the side of the USA, no matter who's president.
On the other hand, Obama has not earned my trust. If he gets something right, I'll give him credit for it; but when he gets things wroing, I'll not withhold my critique for the sake of "national unity."
As should be American tadition for every American, if Americans come under threat or attack, the president will have my support for anything short of 'piece in our time' diplomacy.
On the domestic side though, ima suspect I'll largely be siding with his opposition.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
11/11/2008 9:15 Comments ||
I haven't read any articles from anyone suggesting that we not support him. The 'riots in the streets' threats were coming from rabid liberal personas and anarchist types (nuts). To be tepid in your support is one thing, to actively subvert the president is quite another. Like, say, going to Hamas or Syria or Iraq and meeting with their leaders, making promises and statements counter to the administration's policy.
Those weren't conservatives doing that, or exposing secret govt. anti-terror ops. So up to now I don't see any reason to point the finger at conservatives, they have been nothing but gracious in their defeat so far.
There's a difference between loyal opposition and insane ranting. We've had 8 years of the latter, shall we prove ourselves no better than the Democrats? I hope not. I'm not going to be a hypocrite. I'll wait until he doesn't something stupid and I will absolutely point it out to everyone I can, until then, stop acting like spoiled brat democrats.
The One has not done anything (yet) to cause me to take up my Second Amendment arms and attempt to overthrow the government. Until that time, I shall support my country (AND its feckless leadership on the vital stuff) to the best of my ability. While The One may not have campaigned legally it seems like he did really get elected (unlike Franken), and 'in a Democracy you get the government you deserve.' We have created two generations of uneducated and 'needy' Americans who now have the numbers to call the shots. I don't see that changing until the house of cards collapses and we start over - at which time the weak (weak-willed, stupid, lazy, etc.) won't survive.
This is B.S. It is not our duty to to support the president. Its our duty to support the country.
The concept of "supporting the president" conflicts with constitutional separation of powers. The congress is responsible for evaluating and passing laws, not rubber stamping presidential requests. The senate advices and consents (or not) to key appointments and to international treaties. It is their duty to questions the president and independently determine whether or not his decisions are to be supported.
The citizenry respects the outcomes of elections, obeys laws and supports the government, or dissents from the government, each according to their own beliefs and interests.
I have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution "from all enemies, foreign and domestic". I have always considered that socialists, Marxists, progressives, etc. were the domestic enemies of the Constitution and therefore, the country.
I fear that this election has installed a domestic enemy as POTUS. He will not receive any support from me until he proves otherwise.
Politics *should* end at the water's edge. Of course, that always applied to Republican politics, as the Democratic piranhas like Teddy Kennedy, Kerry, and Biden did whatever the hell they felt like without much in the way of consequences.
But... "I am good to those who are good. I am also good to those who are not good." Just because liberal asshole Democrats fail to be good Americans is no reason for conservative nominal Democrats like yours truly or upright, conservative Republicans to fail to provide the full measure of patriotic support required by our principles.
Inside the water's edge? Serve 'em their own livers back to them on a skewer - no quarter on domestic or economic issues.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
11/11/2008 14:02 Comments ||
I will be against Obama on probably every decision he makes. I will point out his failings. But I will not be like the idiotic and infantile democrats that have surrounded me the past 8 years (I live in Marin County...nutso world). They are like little kids stamping their feet. I won't go to that level. But if he goes off the rails, then I will be very vocal in my opposition.
Barrack Hussein Obama is my President. He wasn't elected by me, or by most of my friends, but he's President of the United States, effective Jan 20, 2009. He will remain my president as long as he supports, protects, and promotes the Constitution of the United States, and the laws enacted by Congress and signed by the President - ALL of them, since 1790 and later, unless they have been rescinded. HOWEVER:
the first time he steps on that Constitution, or tries to do something diametrically opposed to it, he switches from being my President to being my Enemy, and will be treated as such. I'm keeping my eye on him. "Pinch" Sulzburger and several others (Dan Blather, Nancy Pillousi, Harry "Weak" Reid, Chucky Schumer, etc.) have already made that list.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/11/2008 17:49 Comments ||
OP and USMC sum it up.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/11/2008 19:06 Comments ||
Politics *should* end at the water's edge
If that were true, Teddy Kennedy could have been President.
Restrain any comment that puts our troops in harm's way directly (not a problem in the R'burg), but the trickier thing is to question Admin forign policy, and that will surely come up. As I remember, dissent is the highest form of patriotism (per the seditionist left), but keep your judgement intact (I will have to do the same)
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/11/2008 19:20 Comments ||
Yeah, but where's the birth certificate and what does it say? And what about the campaign finance fraud? And what about his advisers going over to talk to Hamas before the election? What other stuff is this questionable character covering up?
He's not my president. He's president of the country. He's not ready. He'll do whatever he thinks fits his political plan, rather do what's good for us, or he'll do some good things so that when the "plan" comes out, everyone will "trust" him.
I have a friend who grew up in Indonesia who says he makes Bashir look like a boyscout. And no one can read him because of the Indonesian cultural norms that Americans can't decipher.
We'll see what happens.
Oh, and why was it, do you think, that Iran was so vocal in its support of D'oh-bama? OF COURSE they see him as weak and as a pushover, or as a partner (which to them would be the same thing). They are LOVIN' it. Trust me.
H/T: Commenter "Tantor" at Blackfive.net. This guy gets it - good stuff, so I've pasted the comment here in its entirety.
What looks like strength today will be seen as weakness tomorrow. The irrational admiration for Obama can not last. It is a fad like the latest song or hairstyle or teen idol. It will pass. The cult of Obama is a balloon waiting to be popped. We should give thanks that liberals are so foolish as to vote their emotions rather than their minds to present such a weak leader. How has wild-eyed fanatic devotion to a leader worked for the Iranians or Al Qaeda? Why do you think it would work for the Democrats?
Stop wailing about what a disaster this is and start arming yourself for the fight to come. Read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers so that you know why the Founding Fathers organized the government the way it is. Arm yourself with arguments for the coming assault on the Bill of Rights. Obama will want to reduce the military, raise taxes, mandate volunteers, ban guns, muzzle talk radio, and super-size the government. These are happy fights which we will win.
While it is alarming to see ignorance in such great numbers and on the march, our ideas are better and will come to be accepted because they work and theirs don't. The coming year will be the intellectual equivalent of Rorke's Drift. Dang...wish I'd come up with that last line myself. That one belongs in the national media.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
11/11/2008 01:18 ||
Top|| File under:
He could turn out to be a moderate or a mixed bag. He's putting out conflicting signals. Some moves are quite curious, like the Emanuel Pick, many more surprises to come no doubt.
Emmanuel was picked because he's a consummate political infighter. The Chief of Staff runs the administration, handles the President, etc. The 'Israel' bullet on his c.v. doesn't mean much in this case; the Chief of Staff has very little input into foreign policy.
More telling is the supposed 'non-staffer' who's been talking to Hamas all these months and is now the more-or-less official link to them, Syria and Egypt.
My wife works with a PHD Chemist from Caracas, Venezuela.
He tells me that it used to be just as civil and structured as the US, before that pig Chavez got elected. If you want to brush up on your Spanish curse words, mention Chavez around him. You'll hear swears you've never heard before. Something about his mother and a baseball bat, I don't know.
Obama is worse than anyone can imagine. It takes an Indonesian or someone who grew up there to be able to read him. He is very angry, and has evil plans. His "blank slate" stuff (a kind of exterior "cultural politeness") is something he borrowed from Indonesia and then twisted to serve him here. He's not the creature he has created.
He'll be unavailable for vetoes/vote proposals beyond "present/pocket veto" in Feb 2010 due to "being on the campaign trail", given his history. Should lead to cost reductions in the archives section, tho'
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/11/2008 19:30 Comments ||
Well, we know he's at least thinking about 10 years. We heard him say as much.
There go my fellow conservatives, glumly shuffling along, depressed by the election aftermath. Not me. I'm virtually euphoric. Don't get me wrong. I'm not thrilled with America's flirtation with neosocialism. But there's a massive silver lining in the magical clouds that lofted Barack Obama to the presidency. For today, without a shred of intellectually legitimate opposition, I can loudly proclaim to America:
The Era of White Guilt is over.
This seemingly impossible event occurred because the vast majority of white Americans didn't give a fluff about skin color and enthusiastically pulled the voting lever for a black man. Not just any black man. A very liberal black man who spent his early career race-hustling banks, praying in a racist church for 20 years, and actively working with America-hating domestic terrorists. Yet white Americans made Barack Obama their leader. Therefore, as of Nov. 4, 2008, white guilt is dead.
So today, I'm feeling a little "uppity," if you will. For more than a century, the millstone of white guilt hung around our necks, retribution for slave-owning predecessors. In the 1960s, American liberals began yanking that millstone while sticking a fork in the eye of black Americans, exacerbating the racial divide to extort a socialist solution to the country's problems. But if a black man can become president, exactly what significant barrier is left? The election of Barack Obama destroys the validation of liberal white guilt. The dragon is hereby slain.
So today, I'm feeling a little "uppity," if you will. From this day forward, my tolerance level for having my skin color hustled is exactly ZERO. No more Rev. Jeremiah Wright's "God Damn America," Al Sharpton's Church of Perpetual Victimization, or Jesse Jackson's rainbow racism. Cornel West? You're a fraud. All those "black studies" programs must now teach kids to thank Whitey. And I want that on the final.
Congressional Black Caucus? Irrelevant. U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.)? Shut up. ACORN? Outlawed. Black Panthers? Go home and pet your kitty. Black separatists? Find another nation that offers better dreams. To those Eurosnots who forged careers hating America? I'm still waiting for the first black French president.
No more quotas. No more handouts. No more complaining that "the man" is keeping you down. "The man" is now black.
It's time to toss that massive, obsolete race-hustle machine upon the heap of the other stupid '60s ideas. Drag it over there, right between free love and cop-killing. Careful, don't trip on streaking. Just dump it. And then wash your hands. It's filthy.
Obama's ascension also creates another gargantuan irony. How can liberals sell American racism, class envy and unfairness when our new black president and his wife went to Ivy League schools, got high-paying jobs, became millionaires, bought a mansion, and are now moving to the White House? How unfair is that? Now, like a delicious O. Henry tale, Obama's spread-the-wealth campaign rendered itself moot by its own victory! America is officially a meritocracy. Obama's election has validated American conservatism.
So ... Wham!!!
That's the sound of my foot kicking the door shut on the era of white guilt. The rites have been muttered, the carcass lowered, dirt shoveled, and tombstone erected. Dead and buried.
Equality is something that blacks passed like a speed bump. They're looking for superiority. If you don't think so, look at the unveiled threat of riots in most major cities if Bama didn't win. People who are afraid don't do stuff like that. Bullies do.
I'd rather say that white guilt was instrumental in obama getting so far.
Plus, one of the heads of the leftist hydra that dominates the cultural norm is "anti-racism"... that is, the notion that whites are inherently racist, imperialist, chauvinistical, violent, repressive,... so, guilt has to be shoved down their collective throat, so they can accept, in no particular order):
- having institutionalized anti-white racism (aka affirmative action);
- being blackmailed by minorities race-baiters;
- agreeing to pretend not to notice the anti-white agenda from public education, entertainment, msm, corporations;
- agreeing to pretend not to notice unpleasant stuff like the "color of crime";
Plus probably other items that I can't think of right now. So, no, IMHO, it's not the end of white guilt, as white guilt is an essential pillar of leftist ideology, and leftist ideology has entrenched itself in academai, entertainment, msm,... what could happen if the Zero actually worsen race relations through his term (just like he did during his candidacy, and with his election, just see yesterday article about his supporters celebrating, this is the tip of the iceberg), is a backlash from the white population, who would disenfranchise itself from that "other" America dominated by that racism - lack of trust in the msm would be a start, for example.
Anyway, race is going to be a very big issue for you, or for europeans in the near future, as mass immigration from the third world is even as I type (with two hands, why do you ask?) changing the ethnic compostion of once homogenous or almost (USA) homogenous countries. When California will relatively soon have european whites as the largest minority after latinos, do you think that once Republican State will ever again vote for a non-Democrat?
Anyway, the Zero win boils down to two items :
- it's perfectly ok or a black (or supposed so) to be an anti-white racism... do you think Palin would have gotten away with attending for 20 years a white-supremacist church, which by the way happens to the the largest one in her neck of the woods?
- the Enlightened Elites covered and protected and shielded The Zero in large part because he was black (or supposedly so); had he been white, he wouldn't have gotten such a cult-like following, both from blacks and anti-white racism/white guilt-intoxicated whites (his zombie followers, from the crowd to the press).
JM, you got it right about superiority. an attitude of equality would look a lot different than what we're seeing.
This attitude amongst blacks was preceded by some years among women regarding feminism. Feminism may have initially been about equality but it VERY rapidly became about women being superior to men.
Don't believe me?
Ask a feminist the following question.
"Do you believe that a woman can do anything as well as man can do it, but there are certain things that women can do better than men?"
Based upon their rhetoric, the feminist, if honest, will be obliged to answer yes. A similarly structured question can be asked of race baiters.
It logically follows that if there are things at which women/blacks are better than men/whites, but not vice versa, then women/blacks are superior to men/whites. Such is the perception of vast swaths of this country, many of whom hold bully pulpit positions in education, entertainment, and the MSM.
This attitude is gaining ground fairly rapidly amonst those who have bought into the radical gay agenda, as well.
Make no mistake, folks. This "civil rights" business and empty talk about equality is a smokescreen for an attitude of superiority.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/11/2008 5:54 Comments ||
IIUC, "Feminism" or "gay rights" are leftist ideologies with roots in marxist subversion (no, don't laugh), exactly as similar "rights" orgs in the 60's were motivated by revolutionary marxism, and admittedly so.
And, again, anti-white racism is a big issue for them, well, at least for "feminism" (not sure for "gay rights", though in France, such orgs definitvely are anti-Christian, for example), which identifies the ennemy as the White Man, that's absolutely obvious.
Anyway, in a larger scope, all of leftism, with all of its "pseudopods" aimed at redefinign society, defines The White Man as the ennemy... just think of mike moore being delighted telling in an interview that whites soon will be a minority in the USA, or blaming *white fear* of blacks (and before that injuns) for the supposedly inherent violent nature of the US Bully in "guns for columbine" (and totally whitewashing minorities of any kind of gun violence).
People speak about the 95% of black people for Obama -- but of course black people had in the past gone at percentages of 94% for a white Democrat too: Lyndon Johnson.
Black and Hispanic communities are largely socially conservatives. They'd be obvious recruitment targets for the Republican party, if the party took active steps to disabuse them of the notion that it is meant for white people only.
The repetitions of "Hussein" and bashing Obama for attending the biggest black church at his neck of the woods didn't help convince black people of your lack of racism, neither did the anti-immigrant rhetoric convince Hispanics they're welcome.
And McCain really ought have picked Condi Rice for his VP. (And if Bush had picked Powell in 2004, Powell would be in a good position to be the first black president in 2008 btw)
And I'm guessing the current rhetoric about how "the blacks" want to dominate white people, isn't really working to take black people to your side either.
The party could attempt to partly rectify these blunders in 2012 with Bobby Jindal, but he'd be a disaster in other respects: he's so anti-female for example as to believe that abortion should never be allowed not even to save the life of the mother. Good luck with that - see atleast 70% of women of all races voting Democrat if the Republican Party picks him.
So the question becomes: Do you want black people and Hispanics supporting the Republicans, or don't you? And if so, what are you prepared to give them that the Democratic party doesn't?
One of my biggest problems with Obama was his "post-racial" posturing while not saying one word about ending Affirmative Action (which is nothing but institutionalized racism against White people, and to a lesser degree Asians). What's the timetable? The need for Affirmative Action is obviously over, so when do the entitlements end?? I need to know the date! Preferential treatment is inherently unfair, and a Black President (if he is not a racist) should address the issue.
But during a 2 year presidential campaign Barak Hussein Obama never did.
Do you want black people and Hispanics supporting the Republicans, or don't you? And if so, what are you prepared to give them that the Democratic party doesn't?
You assume these people support Republicans. If McCain hadn't pick Palin I suspect a good number of the posters here would have sat out the Presidential vote. If 'appealing' to any group means giving up fundamental principles, then you might was well join the other party since they stand for attaining POWER in any way necessary. The Donks give minorities inferior education systems that forfeit the future of their children and confine them to recipients rather than productive citizens. That's because the various Teachers Union have far more power within that party than the minorities you cite. Its right there for everyone to see, but the minorities blindly pull the level for the Donks. That's their free will choice in face of demonstrating that the only viable reform possible is to remove the power of the school system from the 'professionals' and back into the hands of the parents. If they're willing to forfeit their children's future what do you thing the Trunks have to offer that doesn't just make the Trunks Donklite?
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Fraser Tytler
You know, Slim, you're coming at this all wrong. I don't want the government to give me a damned thing except honest administration and a reasonble justification for spending my tax dollars. That is all ANYONE, of any color, SHOULD want from government. It's not your father or Santa Claus, and anything it gives to one person it has to take from another. As George Washington said, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
You just saw the Dems in NOLA renominate "Cold Cash" Jefferson despite the fact that he's guilty as Hell of accepting bribes. Same for Alcee Hastings. We could go with Marion "Crack Pipe" Barry, or Kwame Kilpatrick, or Ray Nagin, or The One, or any number of other crooked black politicians as examples that would tend to disprove your contention that all the black folks out there want honest government. The reality is that if they did they wouldn't vote for these crooks, as they do in overwhelming numbers. If white Republican pols did the stuff in white areas that black Dem pols routinely do in black areas, they wouldn't have a hope of being elected. Can you imagine a white mayor of any city in America saying he wanted a "vanilla city?" Right.
If pandering is what it takes to get elected, then I've no use for any party that does it. What the Republicans are on the record as providing is more honest government than the Dems. Bush wasn't caught with his hand in the till or screwing interns; Cheney didn't have $95,000 in his freezer. I don't recall any Bush cabinet members convicted of stealing documents from the National Archives like Sandy Burglar. Do you want to discuss ACORN, or the fundraising for the Bama campaign? I'd be real interested in having you explain how those were just honest attempts to sway the electorate.
The Dems love their criminals and hug them close. So does the black community. When they decide to stop doing that, they'll appreciate Republican government. Until then, they won't. If they never do, it won't surprise me.
There is a HUGE difference between the standards of the two sides, and that difference is that the Republicans won't tolerate what the Dems take for granted. If the Republicans have to become the Dems to beat the Dems, then they've lost before they started--and so has everyone else who believes in and hopes for honest government.
If the blacks are really social conservatives, they wouldn't vote for the crooks they vote for. Therefore, your question about what the Republicans can offer them is answered by saying that if it is honest government, it's something their voting patterns show they apparently don't want. You can argue that point if you like but the facts won't support your contention.
So the question becomes: Do you want black people and Hispanics supporting the Republicans, or don't you? And if so, what are you prepared to give them that the Democratic party doesn't? Posted by Slim6443
Give me, give me, give me, give me, give me, give me. Therein lies the problem. And, the "social conservative" claim. How can anyone in all honesty say something as rediculous as that?
Yes, .5 I 'gave' at the office until a few years back. I started giving when I hadn't yet reached my 19th birtday and made a whopping
$ 91.00 per month. Nothing special, my decision with a little encourage from the local draft board. I 'gave' like a lot of others so that our children and neighbors could live in freedom. I didn't 'give' for a handout, special treatment, affirmative action, VIP loans, Fannie/Freddie, gay rights, abortion, or so that a communist and cocain user could be appointed president by rich, New York and Chicago temple money handlers.
Another RBee more Patriot than thou, excellent. You got an extra vote for that did 'ya?
Or just a writ to bitch and moan and remember the good 'ole days in the 'SAR? Hummm.....? Damn near every comment you make on this board carries the stench of Afrikans Fuck-Up. Did you inherit it or did you copy it?
anonymous5089 - California is already a Majority-Minority state. European whites make up just 42% of the population and Hispanics have grown to 37%.(Not counting Illegals) Between 1980 and 2004 the Hispanic population in California grew by over 8 million. In 2004 the white European population was slightly larger than 1980 but actually decreased from the 1990 census.
In 1980 California had a 58% white European population. Reagan carried the state by 1.5 million votes. He won all but three of 58 counties, SF, Alameda and Yolo (Scratomato). In 1984 he again won by 1.5 million votes but lost two additional counties, Marin (Limousine Liberal Heaven) and Santa Cruz (Home of UC Angela Davis).
Now being a Majority-Minority State in 2004 Kerry carried California by 1.2 million votes and in 2008 Obama carried the state by 2.5 million votes.
Obama carried 33 of 58 counties which included every large county except Orange County where McCain squeaked out a 36,000 vote majority. Reagan won Orange County by a 3-1 margin.
Dick Morris had a theory early this year that Hillary would win 2008, screw up and the last Republican President, ever, would be elected in 2012. His theory was that demographics do not favor Republicans.
Morris picked the wrong Donk but his theory is sound. For the 2012 last shot for Republicans, Obama will have to worse than former California Donk Governor Gray Davis, and he was really bad.
Conservatives have to come to terms with the reality that they are swimming against a demographic riptide. Count on the Donks giving the illegals amnesty. The riptide will become a demographic Tsunami.
joseph conrad...The State of Alaska rejected a donk whom the national party supported with millions of dollars. Unlike the idiots of Minnesota who apparently elected a lying, foul-mouthed, hate-filled lunatic, the State of Alaska re-elected a man who they felt received an unfair trial in a partisan environment.
General Motors has once again approached the federal government with its hand out. It should not be forgotten that in September of 2008, Congress gave the "big three" automakers a loan totaling $25 billion. Now they are back. This time they say that with a mere $50 billion they can turn things around and become profitable in the future. The management of GM and Ford as well as the UAW have been meeting with Nancy Pelosi to arrange a deal. GM claims that if the government does not give them the money they demand it will spell doom for the company and thus the entire US economy.
Let's consider the impact of GM ceasing to exist highly unlikely even if they declare bankruptcy. Hypothetically, GM would close its doors and all 266,000 workers would be unemployed, never to find work again, or so GM would have the public believe. GM maintains that it is really in the best interest of the country and economy to continue to support their failing business model. After all, in what kind of a world would the government allow a company that employs 266,000 workers to fail?
Descending into an abstract economics lesson about shifting resources to marginally more productive activities may be ineffective; therefore, I will approach this issue from a more philosophical angle.
The basis of GM's claim is essentially that they are too big or too important to fail due to their massive labor force. But how massive is their labor force relative to other American companies? It may be surprising that the following companies employ a larger number of workers than GM: Target, AT&T, GE, IBM, McDonalds, Citigroup, Kroger, Sears, and Wal-Mart. It is also worth noting that Home Depot, United Technologies, and Verizon all employ nearly as many workers as GM.
The question must be posed: Should the government bail out all 12 of these companies and, if so, at what cost? I doubt that if Wal-Mart, with their 2.1 million employees, went to the government or the American people and demanded a bailout that they would receive much sympathy, let alone money. But if we are going to base worthiness of bailout on number of employees alone, then Wal-Mart is almost 7 times more worthy than GM.
(I have largely neglected Ford, whose executives are also demanding a bailout. I believe that it is enough to simply state that Abercrombie & Fitch employs almost 7,000 more workers than does Ford. Would the failure of Abercrombie & Fitch's threaten the economy? I think not.)
It is unethical to force taxpayers to pay billions of dollars in order to bail out a company with a failing business model. After all, they cannot even claim, as banks did, that it is an industry-wide problem. Because if it were industry-wide, Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Volkswagen, etc. would all be joining their American counterparts on Capitol Hill with their collective hands out.
For years GM and Ford have produced a product that consumers do not value as much as the product provided by their competitors. Rather than changing their products or business model, they instead spent small fortunes on lobbyists. If the government does bail out GM, rest assured that this will not be the last time. But even if the government gives GM a check every week, there will come a time when no amount of government money will be enough to save them.
What is the best solution? In a word, bankruptcy. By filing for bankruptcy protection, GM can escape the death grip the UAW has on the business. Bankruptcy would allow for restructuring on an unprecedented scale. There is a good chance that a highly competitive company could rise from the ashes of what we today call GM. Even if GM itself was unable to survive bankruptcy, the resources freed from its grasp could be hugely beneficial to other automotive companies that make products that American consumers value more. As taxpayers, we have a right to object to this misuse of our money.
Because we're all wrapped up in 'measuring'. Someone can tag a 'car'[unit] to a sale. If there is no sale then the need for a unit is not there. Thus the resources needed to produce such a unit no longer exits. However, if you're a manager it magically becomes iffy nebulous as to how it is tied to each unit. While they can tie whole blocks of management by divisions [that produce or not produce] those working inside are able to a greater degree fudge their accountability to the unit. So, you kill whole divisions [but the fraternity of good o'boy managers is reluctant to cut off whole limbs of like minded fellow travelers - thus GM maintaining duplicate production lines and divisions for decades]. The organization has failed because it couldn't do that for so long. Time for it to die as a whole.
There will plenty of Gov money when all income tax rates goes up including the top rate to 39.6% in 2001 w/ the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. In Jan 2009, capital gains tax goes from 10% to 20%, though it looks like few will have any to report. In addition the Marxists Obamists is already letting the word out of another 5% surcharge for a max rate of 44.6%. Why the fuck w/ property, sales, FICA, Medicare taxes a high earner wants to give away 60% of his earnings is beyond me. Better to take it easy, earn a few bucks less, and spend more time on holiday.
And it you are going to die, do it before 2011 when the estate tax goes back up to 60% and $1 million.
Let 'em fail. When the plants fall idle, someone can buy them for pennies on the dollar and start a new car company from scratch that is both viable and efficient. And one that preferably keeps the unions out. That's how the market's supposed to work, right??
The single best thing for GM, and Ford, is to take the bankruptcy tack. They then abort, with a judge's orders, their existing union agreements. Cleans the slate with regard to wages, health benefits, retirement benefits, contractual agreements with suppliers, et al. However, management still fears this route, cause the same judge could dump their dumb asses, force sales of all corporate assets both domestic and worldwide. So the Top Monkeys try to hold on, riding the backs of taxpayers. Either route places a tremendous burden on taxpayers. The next large injection of billions to the auto industry ought to be reserved for development towars enabling electrical plug-ins, dooming the shieks to camel f**king for the remainder of their days. Combined with the capital needed to upgrade electrical power infrastructure, this will require a coupla trillions. We need nukes and a superconducting power grid to support an electric auto transition. But at least we would be energy independent.
3, some other company will get that debt and it will be owed to the new company.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
11/11/2008 13:14 Comments ||
Obamalada (note Land of Lincoln plates) - if you have to ask how much it costs, you won't be able to afford it. Pictured is the 2010 thru 2020 model with windsheild and side window cracker redneck see-thru model with standard equipment redneck fat tires.
General Motors plans to suspend production at its factories in South Korea for about two weeks starting next month in one of the strongest signs yet that the crisis in carmaking has spread to Asia.
The shutdown will take effect from late December and affect all five of GMâs Korean plants formerly owned by Daewoo, which form one of the loss making US carmakerâs best-performing business units.
âThe economic crisis is truly global,â Jay Cooney, GM Daewooâs vice-president, said. âWhat weâre beginning to see here in Asia is no different from what is going on in Europe and what has already happened in the US.â
Company officials said the temporary closure in Korea stemmed from slowing demand and GMâs need to manage production and rising inventories rather than a shortage of cash.
GM said last week it had burned through $6.9bn of cash in the third quarter, and warned it might reach the minimum amount of money needed to stay in business by next year unless it received financial aid or car markets improved.
However, slowing business at GMâs formerly money-spinning Asian arm will add to mounting troubles at GM, which is lobbying US lawmakers for funds to rescue it from financial failure.
Separately PSA Peugeot CitroÃ«n on Tuesday confirmed it had dismissed about 1,000 temporary workers in China at its joint venture with local carmaker Dongfeng because of slower sales. The layoffs will reduce the headcount from 9,000 to about 8,000, a spokesman said.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.