Stimulus? My butt!

This will be two posts in a row in which I reference my butt. Does that mean something? Whatever.

We're learning more and more that the "stimulus" package the Deamoncrats are putting forth is anything but. Last I heard, only about 12% of the package will go directly to anything growth related. The rest is, basically, pork. Liberal, lefty, special interests, and feel good do nothing spending. Wonderful. I dare any lefty to defend this "stimulus package". It's a lefty, socialist agenda spending spree. It's almost payback for support. Well, it IS payback for support but no one will ever admit that.

What's worse, there's an attitude by Obama and Pelosi that "we won. Nyah, nyah, nyah!" So much for eliminating "pettiness" and "reaching across the aisle", and "change".

What this means, especially for Wisconsin, though other states are in the same boat, is that Doyle will likely spend the money on programs that require on going funding. Which will be incredibly stupid, as, a year or so from now when we don't get another "stimulus" we'll have to cut back on funding. Of course, it really won't be a cut. Just not as big a rise in money as what's expected. But, it will be called a cut. At which point we know what will happen. Yep. Taxes.

We might break even this year. Maybe. But next year, you'd better lube your cracks 'cause Doyle's gonna go medieval on 'em.

Liberal Politics and Idealism

A few things that caught my attention today.

Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., says he'd be willing to house prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in his congressional district if President Obama makes good on a plan to close the U.S. prison there.

As one of his first acts in office, the president circulated a draft Wednesday that would shut down Guantanamo Bay within a year.

Murtha only has a minimum security prison in his district. But he says he'd have no reservations about holding detainees there in a maximum security prison.

"Sure, I'd take 'em," said Murtha, an outspoken critic of the Iraq war. "They're no more dangerous in my district than in Guantanamo."

Done deal, as far as I'm concerned. You folks voted for him. Now reap the benefits.

Beck had a good idea, though. Put the prisoners in Alcatraz . . . in Pelosi's district. Problem solved! Two ideal places to put the TERRORISTS.

The Senate Finance Committee voted 18 to 5 to approve Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, despite a second day of tough comments by several Republican members. All five Senators voting "No" were Republicans.

I'd like for any lib to defend this choice. In any way what so ever. Could there be a more incompetent and untrustworthy person for this position. If this were turned around, that is, if these were republicans doing this, they'd be skewered. Roasted over an open pit. Eaten. And shit out on the President's shoes. Amazing.

In a stunning revelation, a source close to Gov. David Paterson insisted this afternoon that the governor "had no intention" of picking Caroline Kennedy for New York's vacant senate seat - because she was "mired" in an issue over taxes, her nanny and possibly her marriage.

My guess is that this is the last we'll hear about Caroline's "issues".

Pelosi said one of her favorite moments from Inauguration Day was when Marine One lifted off the Capitol grounds, signifying former President George W. Bush's exit from Washington. "It felt like a 10-pound anvil was lifted off my head," she said.

Seeing how ineffective she's been the past two years, I'm not surprised. I'm sure she's looking forward to her job being much easier with a rubber stamp awaiting her every whim.

Said by Larry King during an interview.

"My younger son Cannon, he is eight. And he now says that he would like to be black. I'm not kidding. He said there's a lot of advantages. Black is in. Is this a turning of the tide?"

This is ridiculous beyond imagination.

U.S. President Barack Obama may order a hold on a proposal issued in the final days of the Bush administration to expand offshore drilling in previously banned areas, an Interior Department official told Reuters on Wednesday.

Nothing has happened, yet. But, does this surprise anyone? We, on the right, knew he was flat out lying when he said he'd consider it.

It's going to be a loooooong four years.

I know you are but what am I?

Controversial celebrity photographer Jill Greenberg, a self-professed "hard-core Dem," deliberately took a series of unflattering shots of Republican nominee John McCain for the current cover of The Atlantic - and then bragged about it on a blog.

Visit Her Blog Here

Greenberg, known for her heavily retouched pics of apes and babies, boasted to Photo District News that she submitted photos of the Arizona senator to the mag while barely airbrushing them.

"I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad," she boasted.

Greenberg also crowed that she had tricked McCain into standing over a strobe light placed on the floor - turning the septuagenarian's face into a horror show of shadows.

Asking McCain to "please come over here" for a final shot, Greenberg pretended to be using a standard modeling light.

The resulting photos depict McCain as devilish, with bulging brows and washed-out skin.

"He had no idea he was being lit from below," Greenberg said, adding that none of his entourage picked up on the light switch either. "I guess they're not very sophisticated," she said.

The Atlantic opted not to use the distorted McCain shot on its cover, selecting instead a more straightforward portrait.

"We stand by the picture we are running on our cover," said Atlantic editor James Bennet. "We feel it's a respectful portrait. We hope we'll be judged by that picture."

But Bennet was appalled by Greenberg saying she tried to portray McCain in an unflattering way.

"We feel totally blind-sided," he said. "Her behavior is outrageous. Incredibly unprofessional."

Greenberg later decided to use some of the images she was assigned to take to make a political statement.

Her Web site now features a series of Photoshopped pics of McCain in some highly unflattering poses - including one that has a monkey squirting dung onto the Republican candidate's head.

Another one reads "I am a bloodthirsty warmongerer," with McCain retouched to have needle-sharp shark teeth and a vicious grin, while licking blood-smeared lips.

Greenberg was unapologetic about the assignment.

"Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for [The Atlantic] to hire me."

Editor Bennet said, "We don't vet our photographers by their politics."

In a statement yesterday, Greenberg added, "The pictures speak for themselves. I took the opportunity to create an image which shows my feelings about the Republican administration and possible continuation of the policies of the Bush/Cheney White House."

How old is this woman? Eight? I take that back. I know a lot of eight year olds and this would be insulting to them. Five, perhaps? I'm surprised she didn't have one of her assistants kneel behind him so she could push him over.

Your compassionate left, folks. Liars, cheaters, amoral, and childish.

The left lunatics

I got this from a blog at the Huffington Post. Everyone should visit this site and see just how the other side thinks. Be forwarned, though, it's frightening.

Anyway, a reader in response to a blogger supporting McCain/Palin wrote this:

All nastiness aside, as a McCain voter you are really saying you are fan of:
a) unregulated businesses like the mortgage industry
b) WAR (Irag, Iran, Russia in the cold variety)
c) torture
d) diminished american incomes
e) oil company subsidies
f) wealth 99% of US wealth in the hands of 1% of US citizens

or you are against:
a) wildlife conservation
b) outreach for the poor
c) community activism
d) government competence
e) the constitution
f) thoughtful diplomacy with the international community
g) finding Bin Laden and securing Afghanistan

These people think they're right on all of this. More intelligent people know otherwise, but this is the problem.

I really try not to be overly generalized in my views. I kid, I'm snarky, but the reality is that I know there's often a middle ground to many an issue. Having said that, let's have some fun with this.

In response to being for:

a) No. I'd much rather have businesses regulated to the point of death and that's where we're heading with a socialist like Obama.
b) (I love this one) No. But I am for someone with the stones to stand up to threat.
c) Actually, yes. Unless you'd rather sell secrets and put our armed forces at risk when at war.
d) No. But as long as we regulate businesses to death and allow anyone and their generation in to the country I'm not sure how anyone will fix this.
e) See a
f) There will always be class disparity. The only way to fix it is to educate and allow for opportunity. Every democrat speaker in their speech talked about how hard they worked to get where they are. Not one of them mentioned the cool government programs that helped them. That's actually a good lesson to be learned.

In response to being against:

a) I assume this has to do with domestic drilling. Funny how we're not concerned about wildlife when building acres of of solar and wind farms. Plus, the polar bear population has grown in the past couple of decades.
b) If you mean higher taxes for entitlement programs, yes. See "f" above.
c) If it means an empty suit like Obama can't use it as experience, yes, I'm against it.
d) Like the current congress? YES!
e) No. I'm against liberal judges, though.
f) Good luck with that.
g) You know we have troops in Afghanistan, right? The first thing we did after 911 was put a big hole where we thought Bin Laden was. Remember that?

The liberal mentality is one of idealism. Liberals don't deal in the real world. It often sounds good but it's wrong or unrealistic.

But, like a Juice-a-matic 9000, people buy in to it.

OMG! I'm like, totally, hot!

Anyone who knows me knows I think Paris is a no talent, skanky, attention whore. She looks retarded and sounds worse.

But, I like this:

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

You know why? Even this vacant bimbo understands we need oil in the interim. The dummycrats don't seem to get that.

Paris Hilton is smarter than liberals.

Whoda thought?

The difference between Conservatives and Liberals

After the 2006 elections, after the Republicans got their butts handed to them, there was a lot of excuse making. In the case of that election I don't think many were surprised by the results. Saddened, but not surprised. Still, there was opportunity to reflect on what had happened. I would say the discourse was mostly insightful. It was admitted mistakes were made, candidates were weak, and certain issues rules the day. Over all, I recall it to be a very realistic view of the defeat with a resolve to do better next time.

Now, I don't visit hundreds of blogs so I don't want to over generalize. Still . . .

After yesterdays election results, you'd think the state had either fallen prey to some evil plot to mind warp the voters . . . or that we had simply become stupid. You'd think the state was made up of two people, retards, and those with class and intelligence.

Sour grapes much?

So the first instinct is to insult the voters. Nice. The next tact is to blame the special interest groups and their fraudulent ads. Perfect and predictable. The last effort is to lambaste the winner for lying and misrepresenting themselves to the obviously retarded voter.

Let's not forget about talk radio.

What they don't do, ever, is congratulate the winner. Admit their candidate was the poorer choice. Expose the weaknesses their own candidate has. Expose the lies their candidate used to try and win. Expose the money trail to SI groups that tried to buy the election. Or admit the will of the people ruled the day.

Then there are the predictions of things going down the toilet, other bizarre predictions, and the threat of moving (I wish they would!).

It's quite a contrast, really.