About Me

Name: Gabholli
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

Today was an historic day, but the euphoria will subside; reality will set in.

Posted by Gabholli on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:26:22 PM

 

No offense is intended in this blog, but some will be offended anyways. On that note, I don't care. No matter what one says, someone will dislike it. So with that being said, I will just write what I please:

Once again, Obama did not say anything of substance even today during his Inauguration ceremony. I think the proper term for his soaring brand of rhetoric is "fluff." He says much, but yet really says little. He appeals to the people's emotions saying "hope over fear," but refuses to quantify what we should hope for, or what are already fearing.

His tendency to say nothing demonstrates to me either that he lacks knowledge of the issues he will decide the course of, or that he is naive. He might get more than he bargained for when he assumes the office tomorrow. Will he respond to the challenges that face him boldly, as a true leader, or wimper in the background letting others take the reins.

To me, he seems ill-suited to face what comes across his desk; I did not vote for the man. I voted for McCain. I don't see how, other than from a perspective of pure emotionality or even ignorance, that one could have found him a plausible candidate.

But that's sour grapes now. He is my President, too. But for the millions who bought into his message, yet never asked him to specify how he would accomplish his goals, I can only say: you may get what you asked for.

Already, there have been protesters in Iran burning pictures of Obama. Before anyone responds harshly to, well, the admittedly harsh treatment of his personage in public(as unspeakable as that sounds to some), I will challenge you to do a simple Google search and find out for yourself.

In other words, I'm not making this up. Some parts of the world may rejoice at his election - and we should happy about the first black president being in office - but what worries me is the OTHER part, that won't care that this "man of words" was elected, no more than they would care that Bruce Springsteen sang on the Mall today.

There is little doubt in my mind that the media is fawning over this man. But there is no real analysis on their part, only accolades. Does he deserve them, even before he has yet to step in the Oval Office? I think no one deserves that honor until AFTER he or she has done something worthy of notice.

Actually, the whole point of my blog is to assert that those who voted for the man demonstrated a great deal of naivete, assuming that pure "presence" alone would change the world and the people in it.

I doubt Al-Qaeda cares that everyone is riding a wave of emotion right now. Euphoria is just euphoria. It lasts for a while, abates, and then reality sets in. Obama has a lot of work to do, but the fact that people are behaving out of emotion does not make him the right man for the job.

I don't think North Korea cares that Bruce Springsteen sang on the Mall, or that Obama is charismatic: that is not enough to change our enemies.


His term begins tomorrow. That's when reality will set in for him. Hopefully he will do a good job, but for anyone to say he will in advance is ridiculous. No one knows whether he will perform well or not, and only time will tell.

May God guard this country and all who live in it(the weird benediction that we saw today, not withstanding)


No man is beyond criticism, even Obama.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A very interesting quote I found on the internet.......

Posted by Gabholli on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:25:47 PM

 

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
 
- Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate? 1940, 1944 and 1948
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The United States is running out of money...(well, it has already....but still, no end in sight)

Posted by Gabholli on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:25:07 PM

 

Well, it's true! Look at the recent story regarding late income tax returns in Kansas. The Republicans are saying in that state that the government there "can't borrow anymore money from themselves" to pay for their social programs such as Medicaid.

Is it any suprise stories like these are popping up around the nation? No, because a lot of level-headed people saw them coming. How can a nation tax itself to death, redistribute its wealth, and expect growth? This is insanity/liberalism at its best/worst!

California is in danger of becoming insolvent. As an aside, if you don't know what that word means, sorry, you must've used drugs or something like that when you should have been paying attention in school. Anyways, this is because of California's lavish nanny state infrastructure. The Democratically-controlled legislature there wants to, by God, RAISE taxes again. This will not work.

Will these lovers of the state ever learn? You can't spend your way out of problems. Solve your OWN problems for once. Don't rely on the government to do this for you; do it yourself! That's the bottom line here. Sadly, several college professors I've had in that past couldn't tell me that(they'd say the opposite for some insane reason); that's something I had to learn for myself.


I'm sorry to say this, and I hate to break this to you all: reality check here! Look, for once in your life, listen. TAX AND SPEND DOES NOT WORK. I used that phrase, meaning that you can't take money from hard-working people, and give it to people who don't work, and expect to balance a budget.

Sometimes, I wonder if these members of the "intelligensia" would ever figure that out. This notion I have alone makes me wonder if these people can even balance their own home budgets.....for shame.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Response to JustSomeDude's blog post attacking Jindal: He has no clue what he's "talking" about.

Posted by Gabholli on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:24:37 PM

 

I take homage with your blog post on several fronts:

First, you seem to argue that Jindal is a pawn in a greater game, that he is dense and must dumb down his speech to speak to "first-graders." Millions of people probably loved his speech, which was heavy on substance(unlike Obama's), and light on "fluffy" rhetoric(again, unlike Obama's).

You seem to be a very angry person, in that you preferred to attack an individual(in this case Jindal), and imply that he is indicative of a broader, "racist" movement, yet you offer no direct connection between Jindal and some of America's admittedly racist policies of the past. In a sense, is it Jindal's fault you can't let go of that red herring?

Contrary to what I assume is your belief, TAX CUTS WORK EVERYTIME THEY'RE TRIED. Under the Bush-led tax cuts, our economy was rolling for the first six years of his administration. The deficit did not explode in size because of tax cuts, as many liberals assume. The government's over-the-top spending practices were to blame. It was over-regulation of the housing market, which led to government-mandated "sub-prime" lending, which led to our current economic crisis. Which, by the way, is NOWHERE close to the terrible times of the Great Depression. Under Obama, we can only go in that direction, if he continues his policies of economic suicide.

The Democratic Congress "let this one go." Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were, and still are, the arbiters of the same tax-and-spend nonsense that got us into this mess in the first place.

Obama did indeed promise tax cuts to 95% of Americans during his campaign. Why would he do that, if in his "enlightened" state above the rest of us "common folk," he saw that tax cuts did not work: merely to deceive the public, perhaps?


Again, I reiterate with emphasis: The present economic crisis did not stem from the market. Actually, it really came from the government. You're love of the government is ill-founded. I wonder why you put your faith in an currently inept Congress.


Phew, I'm gonna cut-and-paste this into my blog. Good day.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My response to a post about Clinton and Carter

Posted by Gabholli on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:23:39 PM

I hate when people reply in sarcastic tones, but so be it.

I don't want to "invade" anyone's blog, but I will respond to the poster above.

Clinton wanted to give mortgages to people WHO COULDN'T AFFORD THEM. Can I make it anymore clearer than that? IF they can't afford them, WHO's paying for them? YOU ARE.
It's a simple thing to understand. Again, why is it bad to say government doesn't deserve your money through exorbitant taxes? That is not selfish.

Anyone who says that "Republicans are always right" is being less than forward with you. But, if you were responding to my post, which I'm assuming, then I never said that. Carter was a terrible President. Ask any sane person who lived during his Presidency what it was like and they'll tell you.

Beyond all that other stuff you said, you didn't refute much, if anything of what I had said; you merely made a sarcastic attack upon Republicans that was very general.

People in this country - well,people who don't expect government to pay their mortgages or credit card debts - want straight-forward speeches, not soaring, meaningless rhetoric.

Of course, Obama won the election, but I don't like having the wool pulled over my eyes.

Sorry!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A long list of some reputable scientists refuting global warming......

Posted by Gabholli on Tuesday, December 09, 2008 2:02:41 PM
Their existence disproves the notion that there is a consensus among scientists about the issue of global warming. The people listed here are obviously qualified to refute the global warming theory.

Global warming is a discarded theory used by politicians to advance their agenda.



Dr. Edward Wegman–former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences–demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich–president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology–says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”

Prof. Paul Reiter–Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute–says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes–director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute–states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea–past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones–says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.”

Dr. Antonino Zichichi–one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter–calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.”

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski–world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research–says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad–head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo–says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.”

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu–founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.”

Dr. Claude Allegre–member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”

Dr. Richard Lindzen–Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov–head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project says “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”

Dr. Richard Tol–Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent.”

Dr. Sami Solanki–director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.”

Prof. Freeman Dyson–one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.”

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen–director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun’s behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »