Monday, March 5, 2007
Prince Harry
Hilarious Hillary
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Tony Blair
Labour's views on the family were 'right and better' than the Tories', [Blair] said. 'Tax breaks in marriage are not a sensible use of resources. Marriage is a good thing, but you're trying to support children.I think it is kind of interesting how Mr. Blair and I arrive at the same conclusion from totally different perspectives. He is of the liberal Labor Party and I am an American conservative. His argument, above, is that giving tax breaks based on marriage does not necessarily assist with raising children. I on the other hand want to see the lowest taxes for everyone. Incidentally, I don’t even think marriage should be recognized by the government. Civil unions for hetero and homosexuals would take care of legal defaults like medical decisions and property rights. Marriage should be a religious ceremony. As such, the government should not care about your religious status. Let them concern themselves with your legal status.
'It's hard to see why you would want to support a married couple without children rather than a lone parent whose husband may have left her through no fault of her own and who is trying to bring up two children. Of course we should try and support marriage in whatever way we can, but to reduce support for lone parents isn't justified.'
Bill Maher, Idiot
That being said, I find his argument incredibly confusing. Maybe someone can explain it to me? Maher believes that the attackers on 9/11 were “brave warriors” but America was cowardly. As disgusting as that sounds, I can wrap my mind around it. These terrorists give little thought of their own life when they commit acts of terror. The Clinton and previous administrations responded by “cowardly” lobbing missiles from safe distances. However, then Maher continues to say that many more lives would be saved if Dick Cheney were killed. Dick Cheney is a member of an administration that responded to these Al Qaeda monsters and their support networks with real force. Whatever your politics, most should be able to see that Afghanistan and Iraq were not “cowardly.” What does he want: a zero response from Clinton or a powerful response from Bush and Cheney?
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Igudesman & Joo
George Soros
Normally, I'm willing to overlook the hypocrisy of the liberal elite. If Al Gore and his Hollywood cronies want to fly around on gas-guzzling, atmosphere-polluting private jets while railing against global climate change, I'm willing to overlook it.
But the latest move by globe trotting, hyper-liberal billionaire George Soros borders on being too much. According to papers filed with the SEC, in the fourth quarter of 2006 Soros purchased nearly 2 million shares of ... hold your breath ... Halliburton. The Halliburton shares reportedly went for an average purchase price of $31.30 a share. That puts Soros' total investment in Halliburton at around $62.6 million, or about 2 percent of his total portfolio.
Now I have no problem with Halliburton. I just think it is hilarious that Soros would profit from a company that his groups try to destroy.
Wall Street
Ann Coulter
UPDATE:
Most candidates are now tripping over each other to get the greatest distance from these remarks. I thought the Edwards' response was great. Apparently, Republicans think he is the greatest threat in the next elections. I just laughed so hard I peed a little.
Iraq Death Toll
The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?
Sometimes you need to put things in perspective. Still think Iraq is a disaster? Here is the source.