If you think I'm rather harsh with the Democrats/Liberals, you're right I am. But I'm only telling the truth that the main stream media skips over. The media spends most of it's time bashing John McCain, Sarah Palin, George Bush and the Republicans, fairly or unfairly makes no difference to them. They'll jump at anything that promotes Barack Obama or the Democrats and debases the Republicans of any stripe.
Never mind the teachers, I'm waiting for the press corps to show up on camera in their blue t-shirts.
***
According to USA Today: 'British Bank Barclays would buy Lehman for $15 a share [it's market price was near $20]' On it's face that sounds like a good investment.
At the same time, the BBC was reporting that 'Bradford and Bingley has become the second British bank, after Northern Rock, to be rescued by the government - this time in partnership with the Spanish bank Santander.' And today I read that the British public is lining up to deposit money in Northern Rock since it's been taken over by the government and all the deposits are guaranteed.
Does anyone besides me wonder why Barclays is investing in America instead of it's own Country? Maybe we don't need this huge bailout Congress is foisting on us.
***
An editorial in USA Today is another hit job, but some of it should be disturbing to the writers if they were thinking clearly---which they are not.
'The reality is, as governor of Alaska for fewer than two years, and as a small-town mayor before that, Palin has had little exposure to the extraordinarily complex issues a president faces. Even with her quick-study skills, she couldn't possibly come up to speed in such a brief period on the array of economic, foreign policy and national security challenges facing the next administration.'
How does that stack up in the minds of the Liberal writers with Barack Obama, a man who was---a failure according to his own words---a community organizer with Acorn [an organization he helped lead into the future---but later is in serious trouble in fourteen states for voter fraud among other things]; a state senator where he could only bring himself to vote present [read: couldn't make a decision] over 130 times; has only spent a couple of years in the US Senate where he has been continually running for President [some people may vote for him in disgust just to get it over with]. He was in Washington at his job only about 143 days.
He's always running for something [think back to the 'present' votes; he doesn't want to commit to anything that can be used against him in the next election], but he never stays where he is long enough to accomplish substantive things or learn anything from the experience to help his growth. Obama claims he has executive experience from running his campaign. Imagaine that! Oh! Shades of George Orwell.
***
Another story from USA Today: 'Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., raised eyebrows at a press conference Wednesday when he said a member of his party caucus had talked about a major insurance company being on the verge of bankruptcy. At the time, Reid referred to the company as 'one with a name that everyone knows.''
The next day, Reid backtracked on his scare tactic: 'Today, however, Reid's office sought to clarify the comment. His spokesman, Jim Manley, said Reid 'is not personally aware' of any particular company being in trouble and has 'no special knowledge' on the topic. Reid, the spokesman said, meant to refer in general terms about the financial sector and 'regrets any confusion his comments may have caused.''
So what else is new, Senator?
***
No comments:
Post a Comment