Talked to Dad today about the Bailout plan, the current state of the economy, stock market, etc. I got some good information about the real causes of this current load of Marxist bullshit, since I was too young to care about it when it all went down.
Turns out that back in the Clinton years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and other lenders, were compelled by threats of equal opportunity charges, and then Federal Law, to grant mortgages and other loans to minorities who couldn't afford those loans, and who's credit report consisted of a race card. When Republicans opposed the bill on the basis of common sense and the FACT that the bill would guarantee loans to those who couldn't afford it, and thus screw the economy, they were labeled racists who wanted to keep nice deserving people with colored skin from owning homes.
Now, we're seeing the consequences of those practices. Millions of poor people can't afford to pay their mortgage, which is their fault for taking on excessive debt, and the lenders' faults for approving the loan. But more so than the lenders, it's congress's fault for forcing the big lending companies to give loans based on the color of the borrowers' skin rather than their credit score. But when the issue was brought up again a few years ago, in 2004, the problems were already brewing. The Republicans warned of dark times to come, that irresponsible lending would lead to a big issue down the road, they were again laughed away by the Dems, accused of racism, and reassured that everything was fine, and there was no man behind the curtain, and we shouldn't go poking around back there anyway.
Another four years has passed and the Marxist Party...oops. I meant Democrat Party, is trying to put their shit sandwich in the Republicans' lunchbox. They're blaming this whole fiasco on the Right and telling Americans, with a combination of innocent little puppy eyes and fearmongering ferocity, that they had nothing to do with this, its all George Bush's fault, and John McCain's fault, and the Republicans' fault. Certainly they could have nothing to do with this. Apparently this is what we get for letting Marxists run our country. Yes I do mean Marxists. Look it up. They started out with some mild, but still textbook socialist policies, but the Federal Government buying up entire companies (which they won't want to relinquish control of when those companies get back in the black) comes straight out of Komrade Karl's famous Manifesto.
The next step in the Marxist plan, assuming we've hit the socialist level (or blown right past it, giving it the finger), is full blown Communism, where the Government owns everything, including its subjects, the peasants own nothing, and we become the Soviet United States.
I don't want that, but I see it coming.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Not My Problem
Thats my new mantra for any of Obama's (or anyone else's) socialist proposals.
"We have to bail out these companies, cuz people have their retirement savings in those companies' stock!"
Not my problem. I don't own those stocks, and everyone knows that the stock market is a risky business. My money is almost all FDIC insured(I know thats a socialist Roosevelt invention, too.) I don't risk money that I plan on needing later. I don't gamble away my rent. I don't stake my future on lotto tickets or anything so volatile as the stock market. Remember, kids, never gamble more than you can afford to lose.
"But what about the poor people who don't get health insurance at work, and can't afford it on their small paychecks?"
Not my problem. The Human Race has survived hundreds of millennia without health insurance. Health insurance probably didn't even exist till the 20th Century. We'll likely survive another couple thousand years without it.I have pretty damn good insurance through work, and I've only been to the doc a few times in the last year, and that was all for required physicals, not because I was sick. Furthermore, the old saying that "you get what you pay for" holds true in health care as well. If you get something for free, expect that level of service and quality. Ask the folks in the UK about social health care.
Call me crazy, but I don't think its my responsibility to bail out irresponsible companies or irresponsible consumers who have flushed their bank accounts down the tubes in one spectacular way or another. I didn't push the handle on that toilet, so I am in absolutely no way fiscally responsible for their losses. So why is Congress planning on stealing money out of my pocket, or possibly even worse, borrowing it from China, to help these morons out? I'm not willing to pay. Why?Because, its not my problem.
"We have to bail out these companies, cuz people have their retirement savings in those companies' stock!"
Not my problem. I don't own those stocks, and everyone knows that the stock market is a risky business. My money is almost all FDIC insured(I know thats a socialist Roosevelt invention, too.) I don't risk money that I plan on needing later. I don't gamble away my rent. I don't stake my future on lotto tickets or anything so volatile as the stock market. Remember, kids, never gamble more than you can afford to lose.
"But what about the poor people who don't get health insurance at work, and can't afford it on their small paychecks?"
Not my problem. The Human Race has survived hundreds of millennia without health insurance. Health insurance probably didn't even exist till the 20th Century. We'll likely survive another couple thousand years without it.I have pretty damn good insurance through work, and I've only been to the doc a few times in the last year, and that was all for required physicals, not because I was sick. Furthermore, the old saying that "you get what you pay for" holds true in health care as well. If you get something for free, expect that level of service and quality. Ask the folks in the UK about social health care.
Call me crazy, but I don't think its my responsibility to bail out irresponsible companies or irresponsible consumers who have flushed their bank accounts down the tubes in one spectacular way or another. I didn't push the handle on that toilet, so I am in absolutely no way fiscally responsible for their losses. So why is Congress planning on stealing money out of my pocket, or possibly even worse, borrowing it from China, to help these morons out? I'm not willing to pay. Why?Because, its not my problem.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Rapid D
I had my first rapid decompression a few days ago. We were cruising at FL180 and all of a sudden WHOOOOSHHHH. There was wind in the cockpit, it got about 10-15 degrees cooler, and fog formed. (For those that have been through altitude chamber training, it feels just like that. Open a bottle of soda quickly and notice the sound and the fog that forms in the top of the bottle. Same thing, bigger soda bottle.) Everyone did a bit of a doubletake and went for the quick don oxygen masks, and flipped the regulator to 100% O2, EMERGENCY, which delivers 100% oxygen to the mask under pressure. The pilot started an emergency descent while the co-pilot got on the radio and informed ATC that we had a rapid decompression and was declaring an emergency and was descending from FL180 to 10,000. We landed safely. What an experience.
__________________
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Found this today and it has me seeing red.
I don't have nearly as impressive a collection as this guy does, but still, I have to wonder how many of my neighbors would be caught blabbering on their stoop about how "Outbreak didn't seem radical. He sure didn't seem like the type of guy that would have those types of weapons."
Oh, yeah? What types of weapons are those? The kind that put holes in paper targets, or soda cans, or the type that can, but never have, put holes in goblins who would threaten my life? Or are you talking about the kind that can kill animals for food?
I have them all. Some are scary military style guns. They were designed to be rugged, reliable, and reasonably accurate. Thats why I like them. They are effective.
But what type of guy owns these weapons?
Do they have to be crazy? Do they have to have malicious intent? Bank robbers? School shooters? no.
Ordinary people legally and responsibly own many more guns than this guy. The only thing it would appear this guy did wrong was live in New Joisey. That and maybe fail to use his impressive arsenal to protect himself and his property against a bunch of jack booted thugs, intent on forcibly removing his Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms.
And then the quote from one of the detectives about how the BATFE has decried that every multiple purchaser is suspicious. Thats only in states where they find out about multiple purchases. I'll never be flagged in Texas or Florida. They don't care how many guns I have, as long as I'm not a felon. But the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has it in their silly little heads that they can just run around the country violating people's Constitutional rights and get away with it. When I am elected to some sort of federal office (fat chance. I probably couldn't even stomach the campaign.) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will cease to be a gubment agency and become a chain of convenience stores by the same name.
I don't have nearly as impressive a collection as this guy does, but still, I have to wonder how many of my neighbors would be caught blabbering on their stoop about how "Outbreak didn't seem radical. He sure didn't seem like the type of guy that would have those types of weapons."
Oh, yeah? What types of weapons are those? The kind that put holes in paper targets, or soda cans, or the type that can, but never have, put holes in goblins who would threaten my life? Or are you talking about the kind that can kill animals for food?
I have them all. Some are scary military style guns. They were designed to be rugged, reliable, and reasonably accurate. Thats why I like them. They are effective.
But what type of guy owns these weapons?
Do they have to be crazy? Do they have to have malicious intent? Bank robbers? School shooters? no.
Ordinary people legally and responsibly own many more guns than this guy. The only thing it would appear this guy did wrong was live in New Joisey. That and maybe fail to use his impressive arsenal to protect himself and his property against a bunch of jack booted thugs, intent on forcibly removing his Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms.
And then the quote from one of the detectives about how the BATFE has decried that every multiple purchaser is suspicious. Thats only in states where they find out about multiple purchases. I'll never be flagged in Texas or Florida. They don't care how many guns I have, as long as I'm not a felon. But the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has it in their silly little heads that they can just run around the country violating people's Constitutional rights and get away with it. When I am elected to some sort of federal office (fat chance. I probably couldn't even stomach the campaign.) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will cease to be a gubment agency and become a chain of convenience stores by the same name.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
A Name You Trust
I find myself chuckling every time I see a commercial for AARP on TV. They claim to represent the Greatest Generation, and now the aging baby boomers, with their socialist agenda of cheap/free healthcare for old people, life insurance, auto insurance discounts, etc.
Their products aren't funny. Their marketing is. Every commercial includes the part where they have to remind the old coots that AARP is "a name you trust." Are their members so senile and gullible that all they need is a reminder that they trust this organization to buy into their crap? "Well, this sounds too good to be true. Who is this AARP that cares so much about me? Oh, they're a name I trust. Well thats swell. I believe them now."
I wonder what will happen with my generation. We still don't think we'll ever get old, but we're also the laziest generation to achieve adulthood. We expect everything handed to us, so I'm sure in 30 years we'll be gobbling up those discount cards and taking solace in the fact that AARP is a "name we trust."
Their products aren't funny. Their marketing is. Every commercial includes the part where they have to remind the old coots that AARP is "a name you trust." Are their members so senile and gullible that all they need is a reminder that they trust this organization to buy into their crap? "Well, this sounds too good to be true. Who is this AARP that cares so much about me? Oh, they're a name I trust. Well thats swell. I believe them now."
I wonder what will happen with my generation. We still don't think we'll ever get old, but we're also the laziest generation to achieve adulthood. We expect everything handed to us, so I'm sure in 30 years we'll be gobbling up those discount cards and taking solace in the fact that AARP is a "name we trust."
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Let it Sink
Hurricane Gustav hit New Orleans yesterday and, once again, the damages are expected to be in the billions. And once again, the American taxpayers are picking up the tab.
We picked up the bill for Katrina back in 2005. We saw FEMA utterly fail in the preparation department, and we've been picking up the pieces ever since. We were assured that New Orleans was prepared this time around, and the initial signs were there. They evacuated over 2 million residents in plenty of time to get to safety before the storm. The levies held, if just barely.
But now we're hearing that much of it was luck. The coverage I saw on the news showed the levies being almost over run. Water was pouring over them with each wave. But the storm hit almost 80 miles from New Orleans, as a Category 2 storm. The forecasts expected a Cat 3 storm just 30 miles from the city. The storm surge only reached about 9-10 feet, instead of the predicted 16-18 feet. So what happens when a real Cat 3 storm, or another Katrina at Cat 4 or 5, hits New Orleans head on? Did they really rebuild for just a Cat 2 Hurricane in the aftermath of a Cat 5?
I think another good question the American taxpayers should be asking is why should we throw more money at a city that sits in a swamp below sea level when their disaster preparations are so obviously half-assed? I say, let it sink.
We picked up the bill for Katrina back in 2005. We saw FEMA utterly fail in the preparation department, and we've been picking up the pieces ever since. We were assured that New Orleans was prepared this time around, and the initial signs were there. They evacuated over 2 million residents in plenty of time to get to safety before the storm. The levies held, if just barely.
But now we're hearing that much of it was luck. The coverage I saw on the news showed the levies being almost over run. Water was pouring over them with each wave. But the storm hit almost 80 miles from New Orleans, as a Category 2 storm. The forecasts expected a Cat 3 storm just 30 miles from the city. The storm surge only reached about 9-10 feet, instead of the predicted 16-18 feet. So what happens when a real Cat 3 storm, or another Katrina at Cat 4 or 5, hits New Orleans head on? Did they really rebuild for just a Cat 2 Hurricane in the aftermath of a Cat 5?
I think another good question the American taxpayers should be asking is why should we throw more money at a city that sits in a swamp below sea level when their disaster preparations are so obviously half-assed? I say, let it sink.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Finally, A Candidate I Can Vote For
At long last, John McCain chose a running mate in Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin. After months of going with the slogan "I love my country more than I hate John McCain," (a bit more extreme than my actual beliefs, but it has a nice ring to it) There's finally a Republican on a presidential ticket.
I don't like Hussein Obama for the obvious and well known reasons. But my biggest issue with Obama is one he shares with McCain; they're Flip-Floppers. McCain has gone from Democrat to Independent to Republican, but mostly in name, and not always in practice. I've been unhappy with two democrats running for office, but now there's a light at the end of the tunnel- Sarah Palin.
I, like most Americans, had never heard of her. The details came pretty quickly, both good and bad. Fortunately, the bad details have been taken off the table by none other than Obama himself, stating that family issues, namely her baby son who has Down Syndrome, and her pregnant teenage daughter, are off limits.
Now for the good.
I read Palin's bio on both the Alaska State web-page and on Wikipedia. Both show her as a tough leader who sticks to her beliefs and analyzes her position constantly. There have been issues where she has changed positions, such as the "Bridge to Nowhere," but from what I've read, the changes were always based on changing circumstances and logic. Thats what we need. We don't need leaders who stand by bad decisions, even shown later evidence that those decisions were bad. We also don't need leaders who change their opinions based on what will bring more votes.
She is also noted to have strong conservative beliefs. She is a lifelong hunter and Lifetime Member of the NRA, strongly pro-life, and has strong family values.
She also has a more impressive resume in politics than Obama. She served a full two terms as a city Mayor, and was Oil and Gas Conservation Commissioner until being voted governor of Alaska in 2006. She visited troops in Iraq and wounded soldiers in Germany over a year before Obama needed...I mean decided to go see the troops(he didn't really visit) and campaign in Germany. Compare that to his two years as a Senator; the other two years since he was elected have been spent on the campaign trail.
I don't need to paraphrase all the good stuff I've read about Sarah Palin when you can go read it all on Alaska's website and Wiki. All I know is I can vote for McCain this November with a clear conscience.
I don't like Hussein Obama for the obvious and well known reasons. But my biggest issue with Obama is one he shares with McCain; they're Flip-Floppers. McCain has gone from Democrat to Independent to Republican, but mostly in name, and not always in practice. I've been unhappy with two democrats running for office, but now there's a light at the end of the tunnel- Sarah Palin.
I, like most Americans, had never heard of her. The details came pretty quickly, both good and bad. Fortunately, the bad details have been taken off the table by none other than Obama himself, stating that family issues, namely her baby son who has Down Syndrome, and her pregnant teenage daughter, are off limits.
Now for the good.
I read Palin's bio on both the Alaska State web-page and on Wikipedia. Both show her as a tough leader who sticks to her beliefs and analyzes her position constantly. There have been issues where she has changed positions, such as the "Bridge to Nowhere," but from what I've read, the changes were always based on changing circumstances and logic. Thats what we need. We don't need leaders who stand by bad decisions, even shown later evidence that those decisions were bad. We also don't need leaders who change their opinions based on what will bring more votes.
She is also noted to have strong conservative beliefs. She is a lifelong hunter and Lifetime Member of the NRA, strongly pro-life, and has strong family values.
She also has a more impressive resume in politics than Obama. She served a full two terms as a city Mayor, and was Oil and Gas Conservation Commissioner until being voted governor of Alaska in 2006. She visited troops in Iraq and wounded soldiers in Germany over a year before Obama needed...I mean decided to go see the troops(he didn't really visit) and campaign in Germany. Compare that to his two years as a Senator; the other two years since he was elected have been spent on the campaign trail.
I don't need to paraphrase all the good stuff I've read about Sarah Palin when you can go read it all on Alaska's website and Wiki. All I know is I can vote for McCain this November with a clear conscience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
