|
| Angry Conservative
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Author: |
Angry Conservative |
Created: |
1/23/2007 1:36 AM |
 |
|
. |
|
Why did McCain lose? |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
11/7/2008 8:59 AM
|
|
|
A lot of people are Monday Morning Quarterbacking as to why McCain lost, so I figured I'll throw my worthless opinion into the matter. Ultimately, he was the accidental candidate. He was never able to excite Republicans and more importantly conservatives, and so fewer actually showed up at the polls. Don't believe me? See what the American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate says about voter turnout (man that's a mouthful to say):
"Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3%"
The two big (and arguably best) Republican candidates were Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. I'm not sure what happened to Juliani's campaign, it sorta fell apart, but Romney was swimming in money. He was running a great campaign, when suddenly Mike Huckabee entered the race and split the conservative vote and so the moderate or "Maverick" McCain won. This really disheartened the base, meaning that most conservatives were not only discourage but some didn't even go out and vote. Even with Sarah Palin's pick as VP, we still were ultimately discouraged. McCain was definately not the conservative candidate.
Which really makes me wonder, how well a Giuliani or a Romney would have done against Obama. Guess we'll find out in 4 years...
|
 |
|
Comments (3)
|
|
|
|
An Environmentalist I can agree with! |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
11/6/2008 11:16 PM
|
|
|
A lot of my friends don't believe me when I say there are known, respected scientists and climatologists that don't believe in Global Warming. Check out this story:
Naturalist David Bellamy shunned because he doesn't toe the Global Warming line
David Bellamy is venting that the BBC has pulled him off the air because he doesn't believe in Global Warming. Unfortunately, the article lists his feelings more than any actual facts, however, the botanist has written 35 books and presented over 400 programmes over the years. He's a pretty respected fellow.
Here's a couple highlights:
According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have
been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we
not hear about that?
and
I’ve seen evidence, which I believe, that says there has not been a rise in
global temperature since 1998, despite the increase in carbon dioxide being
pumped into the atmosphere. This makes me think the global warmers are telling
lies – carbon dioxide is not the driver.
(I really want to see the evidence he's talking about)
But ultimately, here's the *real* point he makes, that I've been making for years now:
The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems
that desperately require attention. I’m still an environmentalist, I’m still a
Green and I’m still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of
the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming
“problem” that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the
world.
(emphasis added)
As I see it, there are two big problems with Global Warming/Climate Change/Modern Hysteria: A) it's diverting attention, energy, resources, money from the real problems to a "guess" problem. And more importantly B) any fix we try to implement will probably make matters worse! Whenever man tries to muck around with nature, we just screw it up big time. If you haven't yet, read the late Michael Crichton's speech on Complexity Theory and Environmental Management. It explains how man tried to "manage" Yellowstone, and truly made a huge mess of things. Now take that and multiply it on a global scale, and you'll see why Global Warming is dangerous...
|
|
|
|
Comments (3)
|
|
|
|
Our condolences, Michael Crichton |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
11/5/2008 2:49 PM
|
|
|
One of my personal favorite authors died today, Michael Crichton.
Michael Crichton died at the age of 66 fighting cancer.
I remember when I read Jurrasic Park for the first time, and was really impressed with the different points of view from all the different characters. I really enjoyed the book. Then he wrote State of Fear, and I was hooked. I loved how he was able to systematically call into question the "common" knowledge of Global Warming into fiction, and then back it up with an intense bibliography, showing the facts behind the matter.
If you haven't read it yet, pick up State Of Fear, a really good book (though the ending was kind of a let down):
 
In addition to his fiction, he wrote a few good essays on Global Warming and many other things. Check them out at http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essays.html. They're a really good take on why Conservatives are at least leery of Global Warming.
|
|
|
|
Comments (3)
|
|
|
|
A new trend: Journalist recognizing the bias in their own media |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
10/28/2008 11:32 AM
|
|
|
As I commented a few days ago, Orsen Scott Card who is himself a Democrat and a Columnist was amazed and ashamed at the blatent bias in the current media covered for Democrats and against Republicans. Another article has surfaced today from Micheal Malone, expressing similar regrets:
ABCNews' own Micheal Malone is ashamed to be a journalist
Here's a quick snippets:
The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.
Tell me you haven't felt that way before?
|
|
|
|
Comments (7)
|
|
|
|
Orsen Scott Card chimes in on Economic crunch |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
10/24/2008 2:57 PM
|
|
|
Writer, Democrat, and Columnist Orsen Scott Card has something to say about the current economic crunch, and particularly how it's being reported:
Card's "Would the Last Honest reporter Please Turn On The Lights?"
In brief, Card is amazed at the double standard in the media over the reporting in the housing crisis, all because it stems back to a Democratic Administration (Clinton's) and a law created by Democrats (Dodd and Frank) and doing so might hurt the election of a Democrat into the White House.
Here's a snippet:
| I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to
John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal.
"Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both
Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush
administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even
further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they
failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts
Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned
them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to
the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
| |
Yes, and people wonder why the media is accused of being in favor of the Democrats?
|
|
|
|
Comments (2)
|
|
|
|
McCain gets more negative news coverage than Obama |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
10/22/2008 4:10 PM
|
|
|
And you wonder why conservatives feel the main stream media is liberally biased?
Washington Post: More Negative Ads for McCain than Obama
Here's the news coverage breakdown:
- McCain : 57% Negative, 14% Positive
- Obama: 29% Negative, 36% Positive
Almost DOUBLE the negative news coverage on McCain than Obama! And you wonder why he's slipped in the polls? The drive-by media is Obama's free propaganda machine. That, and the fact that Obama has paid for almost the most attack ads in history.
|
|
|
|
Comments (3)
|
|
|
|
Why a line needs to be drawn with Same Sex Marriage |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
10/14/2008 10:09 PM
|
|
|
Some of my friends don't understand why Conservatives are so against same sex marriage. Well, NPR recently had a great article why:
NPR: When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
Besides the general erosion of morality, redefining the traditional definition
of marriage affects what religious institutions can and can't do. Whether
homosexuals intend this to happen or not is besides the point, the fact of the
matter is many relgious institutions are no longer able to perform the services
they have provided in the past because they are not allowed to follow their
beliefs. Whether their beliefs are "right" or not doesn't matter. Good
services are now being denied our society because of the redefinition of
marriage.
The worst part of all of this is that there is *nothing*
gained from homosexuals being able to marry that they don't already have.
Through wills, power of attourney, and "common law", a gay couple has the exact
same rights as a straight couple, married or not. All that is gained by
redefining marriage to include same sex marriages is a psychological one, but
much is lost.
|
|
|
|
Comments (9)
|
|
|
|
What is a Zombie? |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
8/17/2008 10:20 PM
|
|
|
Bob Hope understands Zombies better than anyone...
Transcript:
Bob: You live here?
Guy: Yes.
Bob: Well maybe you know what a zombie is.
Guy: When a person dies and is buried, it seems a certain voodoo priest who, who has the power to bring him back to life.
Girl: How horrible.
Guy: It's worse than horrible, because a zombie has no will of his own. You see them sometimes, walking around blindly with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring.
Bob: You mean like Democrats?
|
|
|
|
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
Happy 4th! |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
7/6/2008 12:37 AM
|
|
|
A little entertainment for your 4th of July Weekend!
Happy 4th :)
|
|
|
|
Comments (2)
|
|
|
|
Obama Gaffs: SexEd for Kindergarten |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
7/5/2008 1:18 PM
|
|
|
Barak Obama is so relatively new to the political sphere, he is going to perform a lot of Gaffs. Here is a simple one:
Sex Education for Kindergarten? This is old news, but very pertinent. And I like Romney's response (and he would make a great VP, I'll post about that another day).
The interesting thing about Obama's gaffs is that they are great insight into how the man thinks. A lot of liberals feel that Bush is an idiot because he has the, admittedly, many gaffs. So what should we think about Obama with his, admittedly, many gaffs?
Over the next few weeks, I'll post up a series of Obama Gaffs.
|
|
|
|
Comments (6)
|
|
|
|
The new diet fad: Go To Jail! |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
4/28/2008 9:06 AM
|
|
|
This one made me chuckle:
Innmate loses 100lbs: Complains Jail not feeding well enough!
This is priceless:
"An inmate awaiting trial on a murder charge is suing the county, complaining he
has lost more than 100 pounds because of the jailhouse menu." Prisoner Broderick Lloyd Laswell
He was over 400lbs going into jail, and is now a little over 300lbs. I don't know why he's complaining, sounds like the best diet regime I've ever heard of!
|
|
|
|
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
|
Surprising? ABC digs up 4 soldiers who support Obama |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
4/7/2008 10:56 AM
|
|
|
Classic. ABC has a report that has "surprising" endorsements from our troops, and guess who got the endorsements? Of course, the Democrats.
ABC News "Surprising Political Endorsements By U.S. Troops"
Nothing surprising about the headline. The only kind of "troop endorsement" story that ABC News would come up with would of course be one that supports their agenda. Read the story and notice what was left out. A) they don't mention how many troops they interviewed. B) and of course no mention of ANY Republican support. A whopping FOUR soldiers endorsed Obama and one endorsed Hillary.
Knowing ABC News, you are likely to see EVERY SINGLE ENDORSEMENT of their candidates. What does this mean? Of the hundreds of soldiers they talked two, ONLY four endorsed Obama and one endorsed Hillary. If there were more, you'd see them all in the story.
I should note that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MEDIA-BIAS.The problem is that these media sources "claim" that they are unbiased, when it's pretty obvious that the reverse is true, that is what bugs me.
|
|
|
|
Comments (3)
|
|
|
|
Global Warming or Global Cooling? |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
4/2/2008 9:50 AM
|
|
|
A recent comment on an earlier blog produced this result:
GLOBAL WARMING or GLOBAL COOLING? by Angelos Backus
It's a relatively brief article that defines the whole root of the problem of trying to determine if global warming is man made or not. Ultimately, there are SO MANY UNKNOWNS in our environment that we cannot say one way or another if we are the cause of global warming (questionable statement at best).
What REALLY bugs me about Global Warming is that if these environmentalists would just get off of the whole "Global Warming" agenda and just talk about pollution in general, a lot of conservatives would line up behind and agree!
|
|
|
|
Comments (53)
|
|
|
|
Soldier Casualties, will Hillary repeat Bill's track record? |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
3/24/2008 9:03 AM
|
|
|
4-15-08 CORRECTION
The original post erroneously reported the numbers from the congressional report, and have been adjusted.
The 4000 soldier has died in Iraq. A moment of silence for the soldier and the others who have sacraficed themselves in the line of duty.
Now, here's an interesting question you have to ask yourself: If Hillary is elected, will she repeat her husband's track record on soldier deaths? You must be thinking, "Surely she can do better than Bush!" Well, before you jump to any conclusions, how about we look at the facts.
The Clinton years cause more soldier casualties than the Bush years?
Last year (June of 2007), Congress commissioned a report of all casualties in all the conflicts America has been in and it is interesting to see:
Year
| Casualties
| President
| 1980
| 2,392
| Jimmy Carter
| 1981
| 2,380
| Ronald Reagan
| 1984
| 1,999
| Ronald Reagan
| 1988
| 1,819
| George H W Bush
| 1990
| 1,507
| George H W Bush
| 1991
| 1,787
| George H W Bush
| 1992
| 1,293
| George H W Bush
| 1993
| 1,213
| Bill Clinton
| 1994
| 1,075
| Bill Clinton
| 1995
| 1040
| Bill Clinton
| 1996
| 974
| Bill Clinton
| 1997
| 817
| Bill Clinton
| 1998
| 827
| Bill Clinton
| 1999
| 796
| Bill Clinton
| 2000
| 758
| Bill Clinton
| 2001
| 891
| George W Bush
| 2002
| 999
| George W Bush
| 2003
| 1,228
| George W Bush
| 2004
| 1,874
| George W Bush
| 2005
| 1,942
| George W Bush
| 2006
| 1,858
| George W Bush
|
The total number of deaths during Clinton's reign: 7500
The total number of deaths during Bush's reign so far: 8792
The total number of wars during Clinton's reign: 0
The total number of wars during Bush's reign: 2
Even with two wars, under Bush only roughly 15% more deaths have occurred...
|
|
|
|
Comments (3)
|
|
|
|
Global Warming, where for art thou?!? Coldest it's been in 100 years! |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
2/25/2008 10:20 AM
|
|
|
The National Post is reporting that snowfall in North America, Siberia, Mongolia and China has been the greatest since 1966, and many American cities are colder than all of the 20th century.
Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
The article is fascinating, a recount of facts about major cooling events around the globe, startling when you consider the rhetoric around Global Warming (which the media is conveniently trying change the term to climate change so that they can blame cold and cooling trends on Global Warming). Shouldn't we be able to throw away our coats soon and all live in our shorts during the winter?
Here's an interesting quote:
According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at
Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical
dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the
computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the
circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering
another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
And if you don't believe me, look at what Wikepedia has to say about Global Cooling.The scare that was in the 70s will come back in the 2010, and we're just experiencing the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended).
|
|
|
|
Comments (2)
|
|
|
|
Fun with math, a Mathamagician |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
1/10/2008 10:14 AM
|
|
|
Saw this the other day, and it's a nice break during this hectic political season. Just sit back, watch, and enjoy :)
The link to the page I found it on is here: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/199
|
|
|
|
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
Would George Clooney make a better President? |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
10/4/2007 9:18 AM
|
|
|
Hollywood always makes me roll my eyes. Latest is something Brad Pitt said:
Brad Pitt tells George Clooney to run for President.
Some actors I have respect for in the realm of politics, but Mr. Pitt doesn't strike me as one to take very seriously. And Clooney? Fortunately, he has the wisdom to say it's not a good idea, but Mr. Brainy Pitt then says if Clooney isn't interested, then Ben Afleck should run. Ooooh, even better! A has-been actor living in the bubble of Hollywood thinking they can be benevolant and bless us poor Americans...
|
|
|
|
Comments (14)
|
|
|
|
Court Ordered Warning for Schools to show Gore's Inconvenient Truth |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
10/3/2007 8:20 AM
|
|
|
Oh this is rich! Some schools in the UK are showing Al Gore's propaganda piece An Inconvenient Truth but the courts have stepped in and say they must issue a warning!
UK Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias
"Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday."
U.K.s Environment-Secretary apparently sent the film to 3500 schools in Britain in an attempt to endoctorinate the children there on global warming. One parent was very displeased and took this case to court. The court at least seemed to see the dangers of this film: "the court heard that the critically acclaimed film contains a number of
inaccuracies, exaggerations and statements about global warming for which there
is currently insufficient scientific evidence. "
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that the UK government understood what the court's decision was about. The court was trying to say that An Inconvenient Truth is exactly not "truth" but rather one's (inaccurate and exagerated) interpretation of what's happening around us. If schools are going to present this film, they need to warn that there are other views on Global Warming and really should present these other views. But, Children's Minister Kevin Brennan (UK has a "children's minister"?) doesn't see it that way. Rather, they see it that the court will let them show their twisted view of climate change and they will warn as quietly as possible .
|
|
|
|
Comments (4)
|
|
|
|
Dangerous man that is Carter (when dealing with Iran) |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
9/21/2007 11:06 AM
|
|
|
Jimmy Carter isn't too bright. And he doesn't have a very good track record where Iran is concerned.
Bretbart.com: Jimmy Carter thinks Iran will not threaten Isreal
Remember the comment the Iranian air force said earlier this weak about having an attack plan if Isreal strikes (which quite honestly I don't think is wrong, I mean, we had attack plans for when Russia was threatening us)? Part of it was in response to Isreal's flight/bombing over Syria, but regardless, Jimmy Carter decided to expound his wisdom upon us. He claims that we have no fear, Iran would never attack Isreal because it would be suicidal. Uh-huh, because Middle Eastern Arabs have never considered committing suicide to kill some jews?
|
|
|
|
Comments (12)
|
|
|
|
Finally! Senate condemns the "General Betray Us" ad (well, most of it) |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
9/20/2007 12:02 PM
|
|
|
Finally, some in the senate are standing up to yet another unwarrented attack from MoveOn.org, this time on General Petraeus.
Breitbart.com reports on Senate vote condemning "General Betray Us" ad
The ad ran in the New York Times not too long ago (which, btw, was given to them at a huge discount. Try to tell me the NYT isn't liberal) and was really just sad. As usual, instead of anything constructive about the war, it was simply accusational and followed the traditional liberal way of communicating. Can't win with ideas, just start attacking the person.
Well, finally today the Senate voted to condemn this ad, 72-25. Not bad for a Democratic controlled Senate. Notice that Clinton voted against Petraeus, which should tell everyone how poorly she'll do in Iraq.
But read the whole article. It's really quite revealing that the Dems keep trying to treat this war as Vietnam and trying to cut funding, but it keeps failing because THIS WAR ISN'T VIETNAM! And even if it was, they were wrong there too. Pol Pot anyone?
|
|
|
|
Comments (4)
|
|
|
|
Global Warming or Local Warming? |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
8/2/2007 9:56 AM
|
|
|
There are a bunch of "brown clouds" over Asia, and scientists have assumed they contained Aerosols and would cool the planet because they filter out the sun rays. Until now.
 
BBC reports unmanned aircraft examines Asia's brown clouds
This article reveals three major problems with Global Warming and politics:
WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE PLANET!
The article is a great example of how little we truly understand about this planet. Scientists used to think that these clouds cooled the planet. Now they believe they are actually warming by 50%, causing the glaciers to receed in the Himalayas. There is so much more for us to study and discover, the arrogance in the belief that a computer model can predict our planet's weather in 10 years is astounding.
POLLUTION IS LOCAL, NOT GLOBAL!
Another problem is how Global Warming doesn't really exist, pollution problems are on a local scale not a global scale. The melting of Kilamenjaro is a great example of this. It's not because of some evil Global Warming that the snows are receeding, it's because of the local deforestation.
KYOTO TREATY HURTS MORE THAN HELPS!
Lastly, China and India were pretty much exempt from the Kyoto Treaty that environmentalists are so fond of touting was a failure of the Bush Administration. But had we joined the accord, how would that have helped this problem? Nadda, zip, nothing. The main reason Bush did not want to join Kyoto was because it basically just punished America and let everyone else pollute as they will. At least Bush is thinking about America's interests.
Bottom line: Pollution is a problem, Global Warming is not. We need to figure out how to stop polluting and stop worrying about creating computer models and concerts for non-existant fear scams.
|
|
|
|
Comments (10)
|
|
|
|
Global Warming Gestapo tactics |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
7/27/2007 1:59 PM
|
|
|
We all know the Democrats like to compare Bush to Hitler and his
Gestapo, but what about the EPA? As I've mentioned in other Global
Warming posts, the dangers of politically driven policies is that
science-be-damned! It must fit within my policy or be done away with.
Recently, an EPA member group threatened to destroy a "denier"s career:
Washington Times article: Destroying a Denier's Career
"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar," Mr. Eckhart wrote. "If
you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign
against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the
Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man
who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."
Gotta love how globalwarmists (and just about everyone on the left) threatens when they can't get things their way...
|
|
|
|
Comments (8)
|
|
|
|
Democratic Woes |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
7/18/2007 8:37 AM
|
|
|
The Democrats are running both the house and the senate, and they are not learning from the Republican mistakes. Their recent showboating led by Harry Reid, trying to twist senate rules into a fillabuster (the minority party has the right to request a 60 vote passage, but Reid feels that's a fillabuster for some reason, looks like someone needs to go back to political college), plans for unchecked spending, and misinterpreting America's displeasure with the war in Iraq to mean complete withdrawal and surrender is leading to the lowest approval ratings in history!
"An even bigger majority, 83 percent, say the Democratic-controlled Congress is
doing only a fair or poor job -- the worst mark for Congress in a Zogby poll."
Reuters reports on a Zogby poll that shows the lowest mark ever for Congress. I'm going to try to lay out a few reasons why.
Democrats love to Tax and Spend
One of the reasons the Republicans were booted out of office last year was not because the Democrats had so much more to offer, it's because the Republicans themselves were not following their own principles. They were spending like crazy, and this caused a lot of voters to simply stay home. Democrats now in power or planning on spending even more and people don't like this.
One of the latest earmarks from a Democrat is a million dollars for a non-exists institution. The Politico reports on John Murtha's earmark and this is one of many reasons why people are not liking the current political climate (talk about a needed climate change). Couuple this with their desire to do away with Bush's tax cuts, and that's a recipe for disaster.
Lack of Plan in Iraq
The Dems keep misinterpreting the results of the election as "the American people wanting a change in Iraq and us pulling out". What blows my mind is WE HAVE CHANGED! Iraq policy has changed from doing nothing under Rumsfield, hoping that a diplomatic solution will suddenly appear, to actually killing al Qaida! This troop surge is working so well that the so-called Sunni insurgents are allying with Americans to kill terrorists. This month finally the surge is complete, all the extra troops are in place in Iraq and they can really start the job, but does any of this matter to the Democrats?
I posted a while ago about the pains of being General George Petraus. They vote him in unanimously, tell him they will support him, and before the troop surge has even begun, they want to call it a failure and pull all troops out. Listen to me now and hear me later, Americans do not want to pull out of Iraq!
I'm not the only one shouting this. The L.A. Times thinks pulling out of Iraq is a bad idea. They had many articles today explaining that without the proper planning, pulling out of Iraq will be worse then how we pulled out of Vietnam and left millions to die from Ho Chi Man and Poll Pot. In an article entitled "Pullout proposal lacking a Plan B" Noam N. Levey of the L.A. Times explains that much violence will ensue if we pull out now. I love this quote:
"Senate Democrats' "New Direction" agenda, in which the party touts its goals,
does not address the issue of a post-withdrawal Iraq, noting only that "Senate
Democrats remain committed … to bring the war to a successful and responsible
end.""
Somehow leaving Iraqis to a lot of violence and blood shed is a "successful and responsible end". Heck, even the new Security General of the U.N. has warned that an early pull out is bad. I swear if I hear "new direction" or "it's time for a change" one more time, I'm going to punch someone.
Ignoring Success in Iraq
All this grand-standing is ignoring any kind of success in Iraq. Today, U.S. Forces captured Abu Shahid, the highest ranking Iraqi in al-Qaida in Iraq! This with many other successes in Iraq are being ignored by both the Democratic led governments and the media (who is focusing on the showboating from the Dems). AP reports the details and importance of this capture. If we hadn't surged the troops, this would have never happened.
Troops are reenlisting in record numbers, even now, when Dems claim that Trrops are wasting their time and should be brought home. The Christian Science Monitor reports:
"The design of the all- volunteer force [after Vietnam] was to make this kind of
[open-ended] commitment difficult," says Thomas Donnelly, a military expert at
the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "But there have been some
extraordinary levels of motivation going on, in terms of serving the country in
a time of crisis."
The "open-ended commitment" would be difficult, if the cause was unjust, and if the soldiers themselves didn't feel like they were doing good. But instead, they are reenlisting in droves! They see first hand the good they are doing and want this trend to continue.
End of Democrats is near
The Democrats are ignoring the failure of the Republicans. Lose sight of core American values and you will lose your control of the government. I guess I shouldn't be complaining, since Republicans are far closer to conservative values then Democrats. Keep up the good work Dems!
|
|
|
|
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
Don't fall asleep on John Edwards watch! |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
7/17/2007 9:33 AM
|
|
|
In a townhall presentation on Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer, John Edwards gave a thrilling speech about his plans on Iraq. So thrilling that a man in a blue shirt fell asleep. But the producers of the show couldn't have this, so they removed him. It's kind of funny. Watch the man in blue to the right of John Edwards. His eyes are closed and he appears to be dozing. Less then a minute later, he's simply not there.
|
|
|
|
Comments (2)
|
|
|
|
The Economy can never be good under Bush |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
7/13/2007 8:16 AM
|
|
|
I was listening to NPR on the way into work this morning, and they had a report on the "lower then expected sales figures" for June.
Read a detailed report from Bloomberg about it.
I love how when Bush is in the white house, all economic news always has to have a negative spin. Instead of the actual growth we've had, it's reported as it being short of analysts predictions. "Lower then expected," and "weak economy" are in just about every report you hear from the drive-by media. All of this news is reported when the very same day Fortune Magazine reports that we are in "the greatest economic boom ever."
"Just how red-hot is the current worldwide expansion? "This is far and away the
strongest global economy I've seen in my business lifetime," U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank
Paulson declared on a recent visit to Fortune's offices," is how Rik Kirkland's article starts in today's Fortune Magazine. The article is very enlightning for those who are leary of economic booms (LIKE WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW!), since with every rise, there is inevitably a fall.
With such a big boom, are we in for a recession or depression? If we're lucky it will happen during a Democratic president, then we'll really see how un-biased the media truly is.
|
|
|
|
Comments (4)
|
|
|
|
Confusions over Iraq |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
7/9/2007 9:38 AM
|
|
|
Every time I hear a Democrat speak about the elections last year and interpreting the results as a mandate for Iraq withdrawal, I just want to pull my hair out. How could they get the results so mixed up? Americans don't want to leave Iraq high & dry, they want results in Iraq. Unfortunately, due to our biased media, we never see results in Iraq. I mean, how many of you know how many new schools have been built or renovated in Iraq? How many know the pre-war levels of basic utilities and post-war levels? How many know the repression of the Baathist party against the average Iraqi, and the freedoms they now live? I've spent the last hour trying to dig up this information, it's out there, but it's hard to find.
Now, however, some Republicans up for reelection are worried that because of the war, they'll lose the next race. They, just like the Democrats, are misinterpreting America's uneasyness about Iraq. They think that if we don't pull out, they won't be reelected. They couldn't be more wrong, and I think it's because they're in Washington surrounded by other naysayers that makes them think this way. Americans don't want to pull out (except for a small but loud minority on the left, who are as crazed as the pro-soviet minority of yesteryear), they want victory! If any Republican starts backing up on the war now, then they will get voted out of office, but it won't be because the war is taking long, it'll be because the people at home will be disgusted and simply not vote, thinking a Democrat is just as good as a Republican in office. That's what happened last year to the votes in the House...
Recently, Richard Lugar spoke out against the President and his new strategy in Iraq, the extremely effective surge and hold counter-insurgency policy that is now finally being put into place. Mr. Lugar is the most senior republican to speak against the President. If you want to read an excellent rebuttal of his words, check out William Kristol's editorial in last week's Weekly Standard. He quote an expert in counter-insurgency (which Lugar is NOT) about the progress being made in Iraq, something you won't see in any of the drive-by media outlets.
The Wall Street Journal reported today that Iraq's foreign is pleading that American not withdraw militarily. I've said this before, Iraq is an ally of ours that we are helping. We shouldn't leave until they ask us to. And I pray to God that we have a long lasting base there for the next 100 years.
|
|
|
|
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
Can we believe the media on public opinion? |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
6/27/2007 8:12 AM
|
|
|
I stumbled across an interesting article yesterday about a public internet poll on global warming:
Three Quarters Believe Global Warming a 'Natural Occurrence'
An internet survey in the UK polled 4000 votes and "found that a staggering 71 percent of people think the rise in air temperature happens naturally." I laughed when I read that, and felt a little more comforted. As usual, the mainstream media is making a lot of big hype out of a non-story issue, and fortunately, a vast majority of those listening aren't giving them any credence.
After reading that story, it made me look at some of the other nations in the EU and made me wonder if the people of Europe are indeed closer to American thinking then the left media wants you to believe. Look at France, they just elected Sarkozy on a platform of tougher immigration, tougher working laws (no more 30 hr work week), more anti-sociolism, and stronger ties with America. The general France populace seems to agree with Germany, whose president Koehler was recently elected on a similar "conservative" platform.
The EU is looking more and more USA then ever, but the media doesn't cover it that way. I wonder why...
|
|
|
|
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
Hurricanes! Blame Bush! |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
6/25/2007 4:07 PM
|
|
|
As tragic as the hurricanes have been the past few years, I always had to chuckle when people blamed Bush for the bad weather. It's his fault because he didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty! But if you apply that logic, then wouldn't the reverse be true? When the weather is good, isn't it Bush's fault?
Where are all the hurricanes?
The above article talks about how last year, there were many predictions of hurricanes, but not one landed on the US shores. This year, there are the same dire predictions, but so far, they haven't even formed in the Atlantic. Now, we are a bit early in the season, as they traditionally fall around August and September, but still, the point is Bush must be to blame that these hurricanes are hitting us now, since he was to blame when they were hitting us...
|
|
|
|
Comments (14)
|
|
|
|
Deniers Series! Global Cooling on it's way |
|
|
By Angry Conservative on
6/22/2007 2:24 PM
|
|
|
Remember those Canadian articles I reported back on a while ago about the Global Warming deniers? Well, they're up to twenty five installments! Their last two were great, about the Global Cooling "scare" in the 70s that actually may still be a problem.
Global Warming or Global Cooling?
(Wikipedia's entry on Global Cooling)
The first Denier article, Forget warming - beware the new ice age
reminds us all of the scare back in the 70s and the laws that were
enacted because of it. Seems foolish in hindsight, and in fact,
Newsweek magainze actually printed a retraction last year for an
article written in 1975, 30 years ago! They claim that now, the
scientists have it right. Or do they? One Global Cooling scientist, Dr.
Kukla, is very worried, since the planet has shown that before
we enter ice ages, we have a warming period. He's afraid the current
warming trend may be right before a major ice age, which lasts 10,000
years (and we're overdue for one).
If that doesn't scare you, read the second article: Read the sunspots.
Politicians feel "the science is settled", which I can't tell you how
arogant and down right retarded that sounds! Scientists are always
discovering new things, and disproving old theories. If all the
scientists really knew everything there is to know about our climate,
then how come I don't know if it's going to rain next week or not?
This is a great snippet:
"Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant
about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly.
Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and
occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was
about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out
of the thousand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as
much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming
that has so upset environmentalists."
A
lot in this article points to the sun as a major culprit of the Earth's
climate. Who'da thunk? More sun means more warmth? And less sun means
more cooling? Wow, didn't take a rocket scientist to tell me that
(though it did take one to tell the environmentalists).
|
|
|
|
Comments (2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Technorati
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Are you an Angry Conservative?
|
|
|
|
|
Frustrated with how the media presents topics sall day? Want to shout
at the world your points of view? Ready to join the Angry Conservative
blog list? .
Email shout@angryconservative.com to join our team of
bloggers!
|
|
|