AWGBlog

December 5, 2011

The facts behinds the Organic Food Scam…

Like labels you can't trust...

So I was in the grocery the other day getting a few items to make dinner and I grabbed a few green peppers at $0.69 each and right above them were some USDA certified Organic green peppers for $1.79 each… a $1.79?? WTF? $1.79 for a single green pepper half the size? Now I’ve read and watched several stories on organic verse non-organic produce and the conclusion is there is no nutritional difference between the two and more organic labeled produces really aren’t . So why to people buy organic foods? Well for the same reason they buy “New and Improved” when in reality it’s just new packaging in a smaller size at the same or higher price – it’s all about marketing propaganda.

To recall a Penn and Teller Bullshit episode I saw some time ago…

h/t Food Propaganda for the recap

The general consensus (myth) was that;

  • organic food is grown naturally and locally
  • made without pesticides
  • better for your body
  • better for the environment
  • tastes better

First, Penn and Teller did a little investigation and found out that organic food is not necessarily grown locally. In fact, some organic food companies in China export their goods to the United States. You’d be better off going to a farmer’s market for local food with pesticides than buying food shipped half way across the world.

(AWG NOTE: There is no agency in China that certifies food truly organic as defined by the USDA, you just have to trust them that it is.)

Then, there’s pesticides. To win the title of “organic”, you do not need to get rid of use of pesticides. Some organic farmers boast that they keep from “using commercial pesticides”, but non-commercial pesticides are sometimes more dangerous than the mainstream ones.

(AWG NOTE: It’s all about semantics.)

And health benefits? Penn and Teller interviewed doctors on the show to check that theory out as well. According to them, there is no definite evidence of health benefits from organic food. The type of people to buy organic food are inclined to do other things that are health-conscience, such as excising and being drug-free. Organic food alone makes no large change in health.

(AWG NOTE: Remember the professor of human nutrition that lost 27 lbs and stayed healthy on a Twinkie Diet?)

Organic farming is actually less efficient, and hence it takes more money and energy to farm organically. It often uses more water than non-organic farming, and sometimes pesticides used are worse for the environment than commercial ones. It’s true that a lot of organic farms don’t use GMO crops, but that leads to a drop in efficiency and yield. Organic farms take up more time and space, so if all the farms in the world were organic, there wouldn’t be enough food to feed all the humans living in it.

(AWG NOTE: Trust me organic farming is not efficient.)

And at last, taste. Penn and Teller left the scientists alone and decided to try this one out for themselves. They set up a taste test table on the street near their studio. There, they had two plates of strawberries; one organic, and one not. 60% of people could not correctly guess which plate was organic based on a taste test. Then, they gave the experiment a little twist. They had two plates of banana slices, one labeled organic, one not, and asked people who usually ate organically if they could describe the difference. In actuality, both plates were filled with slices from the same banana; one from a commercial farm. None of the organic foodies could tell that they had been tricked.

(AWG NOTE: It’s a scam that is all in your head.)

So in short organic food is less organic than the bullshit in the pasture… if you read (mainly) liberal sites they will cite all kinds of fantastic benefits of organic food and farming over inorganic food and farming – but do they tell you how organic fertilizer can be host to a wide varieties of nasty bacterias like E. coli and fecal matter (ewww) as a matter of fact the University of Minnesota study showed that the organically grown produce had 9.7 percent positive samples for the presence of generic E. coli bacteria versus only 1.6 percent for conventional produce on farms. (source) So now you can not only buy uglier, more expensive food grown in China you can have nearly a 500% greater chance of contracting E. coli and getting deathly ill from your healthier food. But never fear the vegans and libtard environmental wackos will stick to their guns that organic is better than conventional farming. Even the Obama Administration appointed a Johnny on the spot Miles McEvoy to make sure you organic food is really organic according to the government guidelines, but like everything Obama this too has failed to develop.

But if you don’t believe those evil freedom hugging Libertarian’s Penn and Teller – let’s see what does the Mayo Clinic say? Well really there is no difference other than they CYA way of putting it…

Organic foods: Are they safer? More nutritious?

Organic food: Is it more nutritious?

The answer isn’t yet clear. A recent study examined the past 50 years’ worth of scientific articles about the nutrient content of organic and conventional foods. The researchers concluded that organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs are comparable in their nutrient content. Research in this area is ongoing.

Well then they must be bigger, prettier and last longer right? No not really…

Are there downsides to buying organic?

One common concern with organic food is cost. Organic foods typically cost more than do their conventional counterparts. Higher prices are due, in part, to more expensive farming practices.

Because organic fruits and vegetables aren’t treated with waxes or preservatives, they may spoil faster. Also, some organic produce may look less than perfect — odd shapes, varying colors or smaller sizes. However, organic foods must meet the same quality and safety standards as those of conventional foods.

It’s pretty simple and clear even if Mayo doesn’t want to admit it, it’s a marketing scam to fleece you of your hard earned money by buying the produce equivalent to a energy band – it’s a culinary placebo doing little more than giving you a warm fuzzy and increases your chance of bacterial born illnesses. Listen, I grow a garden ever year and I’ve had or worked in a garden my entire life, I’ve used organic gardening methods and conventional gardening methods and I know from personal experience that they is no difference in taste, but there is a difference in yield… if I use pesticide in moderation I get far more produce than if I just go all organic and end up feeding the bugs. You can’t rely solely on chemicals anymore than you are going to save the planet by composting (which I do) – you have to be a smart consumer and do your own research – a tomato is a tomato regardless if it is fertilized with 10-10-10 or chicken shit – the flavor of the tomato has more to do with the variety grown than the method of growing.

So there are the facts – you do want you want. If you feel better about buying something  organic then do it, just know that you might be getting a green pepper from China or Mexico laced with E. coli or fecal matter or not grown organically at all or you could go to your local Farmer’s Market when in season and enjoy a locally grown one that just might be free of diseases and as an added bonus you can talk directly with the person that grew it.

What more info?

Organic Food Has ‘Significantly Higher’ Contamination

Is the Organic Food Industry a Scam?

The Organic Food Scam (I)

The organic food scam (II)

November 28, 2011

You have the right to… oops no you don’t.

Well, well, well look at this crap here… the senate has a bill to allow the military to arrest and detain citizens without trail or charges… just because.

Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial

“The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,” writes Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

Under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

I bet Gramnesty wouldn’t support it if it was aimed at picking up and detaining illegals.

The bill was drafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), before being passed in a closed-door committee meeting without any kind of hearing. The language appears in sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA bill.

Oh Senor Juan McLame who would have ever guessed? I did! Explains why it’s more aimed at Americans than illegals or terrorist.

“I would also point out that these provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect,” Colorado Senator Mark Udall said in a speech last week. One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved.”

I am no Constitutional lawyer but my thoughts are this would trample all over the Forth Amendment of said Constitution – it will be interesting to hear Mark Levin’s take on this who is a Constitutional Lawyer. It goes on…

This means Americans could be declared domestic terrorists and thrown in a military brig with no recourse whatsoever. Given that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized behavior such as buying gold, owning guns, using a watch or binoculars, donating to charity, using the telephone or email to find information, using cash, and all manner of mundane behaviors as potential indicators of domestic terrorism, such a provision would be wide open to abuse.

“American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?” asks Anders.

This is in my opinion more overreaching of power by the government in the name of terrorism – we have laws and provisions in place to detain and capture enemies of the state in the country and to strip the American people of constitutional rights is another dangerous step to further oppression. We need less government not more and in the words of Thomas Paine…

“That government is best which governs least”

And we have a government that is dead set on governing more and the poor quality of our current government validates Thomas Paine’s words. Might want to give your Senator a jingle – just sayin’…

October 2, 2011

The Myth of Smoking and Healthcare Cost…

Filed under: FYI,Government Regulations,lies,WTF — Tags: , , , , , , , , — AWG @ 4:06 pm

Did you see the Herman Cain commercial with the guy smoking? It you were to listen to the mainstream media you would have thought they showed Elmo shooting heroin on Sesame Street! Here are a few quotes from the media…

MATTHEWS: A strange ad, with smoking in it!

BEHAR: Are they going for the pro-emphysema vote here?

KING: To celebrate smoking at the end of a video I find reprehensible.

PHILLIPS:  Is it cool, weird, or just inappropriate?

BLITZER: He survived stage 4 colon cancer.  Anyone promoting smoking, not necessarily a good idea.

HUME: What do you get out of having some miscellaneous middle-aged guy smoking a cigarette and saying you’re the right candidate?

GOLDBERG: You’re not allowed to show people smoking.

JANSING: At the end, he’s smoking!

OMG he was smoking! Just like FDR and Barack Obama! Oh the horror! Agony! Ag-go-ny! Anyway… there is a lot more to the media outrage and shock that something so vile, so horrid, so reprehensible could be shown on TV… wit what? Not TV? It was YouTube? Hmmm… well the rest of the feigned outrage just doesn’t translate well to type so just small sampling of some of the media shock at seeing a cigarette in a political ad or any anything for that matte… now I’ve smoked… I’ve quit… I’ve started back… I’ve quit again… wash, rinse and repeat – people say “oh that smoking it’s a nasty habit…” well so is picking your nose and digging in your ass but there’s no warning on the side of your finger is there? No special ass digging section you have to go to and as far as cigarettes being disgusting… well so are cankles but they haven’t outlawed them yet have they?

Anyway…

Everybody know smoking and being overweight is said to be bad for you and your health and if you are both well you’re probably dead and not reading this… but, so is skydiving, rock climbing, scuba diving, sex with strangers so why don’t these daredevils not pay more for insurance too? If we are going to be a nanny state, than dammit don’t be a halfassed nanny… nanny all the way.

Point is several years ago in a magazine I read a study by the insurance industry… the INSURANCE INDUSTRY that smoker actually cost the insurance company significantly less over a lifetime than non-smokers, but insurance company still got away with charging smokers more because it was fashionable or perhaps smokers were too out of breath to protest. I’ve search the internet high and low for this old study and it is no where to be found… so I started looking for other reports after reading this latest article raping smokers and fatty fats for more moo…

Insight: Firms to charge smokers, obese more for healthcare

Like a lot of companies, Veridian Credit Union wants its employees to be healthier. In January, the Waterloo, Iowa-company rolled out a wellness program and voluntary screenings.

It also gave workers a mandate – quit smoking, curb obesity, or you’ll be paying higher healthcare costs in 2013. It doesn’t yet know by how much, but one thing’s for certain – the unhealthy will pay more.

There gonna charge more for something that statistically cost them less? For decade we’ve been told that if you smoke you will cost the insurance company more, but that’s not true and in fact it’s a lie… after failing to find the report from the insurance industry I came across other things like the Leu and Schaub (1983) report that states the same findings.

If I look at my own family… my grandfather died at age 57, he smoked 3 or more packs of Pall Mall non-filters a day. I have few very still or movie pictures of him without a cigarette – his wife, my grandmother on the other hand is nearly 90 and still alive. She has outlived him by 33 years – so I ask who has accumulated more heathcare cost? My grandfather who smoked or my grandmother who didn’t?

But before you answer… my other grandfather who from the time he was a child worked in the coal mine underground (before child labor laws) – he had black lung from nearly 60 years in the mines he also smoked 2 or 3 packs of Camel non-filters a day for nearly 80 years having started as a child and died at age 88 outliving my non-smoking, non-black lung grandmother by 16 years.

Two families… two smokers and two completely different results, so what does that tell us? It’s more genetics than behavior would be my guess.

Now I’m not condoning or promoting smoking but I’m looking at reality… the morbidly obese are called morbid for a reason and it’s not because they are going to live to be a 100 and be a drain on the medical system, quite the opposite more of the morbidly obese die before they are 50  even before 40 and thus abruptly ending their medical care expenditures. Some live even less time than that – now factor that against the healthcare cost of someone who lives to be 90 or a 100 and I think you’ll see my point.

Let’s take the GOVERNMENT V. COASE

Over their lifetimes, do smokers demand more health care than nonsmokers? There is no compelling evidence that they do. Indeed, the evidence that does exist indicates that lifetime demand for health care is unaffected by smoking. Simulation studies that consider the health care demanded in countries under the counter factual assumption
that no one smokes conclude that moving to a smokeless society would have no long-term effect on medical expenditures, even assuming that smoking is detrimental to health. Upon reflection, that should not be surprising. Whether we smoke or not, we all age, experience health problems, and eventually die; in the process, we demand health care. Smoking may affect the timing of the health care we demand, but there is no reason to believe that smoking affects the total amount of health care demanded.
But even if smokers do not make use of more health care over their lifetimes than nonsmokers, might it not be the case that the health care smokers demand is more likely to be subsidized than the health care that nonsmokers demand? Not if those who want to tax cigarettes and regulate smoking are correct in their belief that smoking reduces
life expectancy. If it is true that smoking reduces life expectancy, then smokers are more likely than nonsmokers to demand the bulk of their medical care before the age of 65.And 65 is the age of eligibility for publicly subsidized medical treatment through the Medicare program.
Worker absenteeism is the other major component of the cost that smokers are alleged to impose on others. There are statistical studies showing that smokers are absent from work more frequently than nonsmokers. For example, Rice and Hodgson (1985) conclude that smokers miss 32 percent more work than nonsmokers. Having found
such statistically significant differences between the absentee rates of smokers and nonsmokers, the authors of those studies have typically
concluded that smoking causes an increase in absenteeism.
That conclusion is unwarranted, however, unless the study has controlled for all other factors that might affect absentee rates. For example smokers are more likely to be found in blue-collar jobs than nonsmokers, and nonsmokers are more likely to be found in professional occupations than smokers. Since workers in blue-collar jobs
miss more work on average than do those in the professions, it is not surprising that smokers miss more work on average than nonsmokers.
But that information is meaningless if one wants to draw a conclusion about the effect of smoking on productivity. Consider the fact that pipe and cigar smokers (who happen to be disproportionately represented in the professions) miss less work, as a group, than do nonsmokers. Who would be so silly as to conclude on the basis of that information that requiring workers to smoke cigars or pipes is an effective way to reduce worker absenteeism?

So there you have it – smoking is bad and the true healthcare cost for smokers and the obese is less than that of some health junky that goes jogging every day.

 

September 30, 2011

Killing Awlaki – was it legal?

Filed under: FYI,Random Thoughts — Tags: , , , , , , — AWG @ 4:52 pm

Anwar al-Aulaqi needed a good killing that is a fact, but was the process constitutional?

Anwar al-Aulaqi, U.S.-born cleric linked to al-Qaeda, killed in Yemen

Anwar al-Aulaqi, a radical U.S.-born Muslim cleric and one of the most influential al-Qaeda leaders wanted by the United States, was killed Friday in a CIA drone strike in northern Yemen, U.S. and Yemeni authorities said, eliminating a prominent terrorist recruiter who inspired attacks on U.S. soil.

Now hear me out… the guy needed to go, no doubt about that. However, he was still a citizen of the US, he hadn’t renounced it and it can’t be revoked without due process and he was still afforded constitutional rights like it or not – now in my opinion if you commit terrorist acts against the United States you forfeit your constitutional rights, but that’s not the law. If you commit a treasonous act you are still receive due process of a trail by jury at which time a verdict is rendered.

So the patriotic part of me says ‘yeah he is dead’ but the Constitutional Libertarian part of me say hold on a damn minute that’s a violation of the constitution and due process and is a violation of the law. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson seem to agree…

Ron Paul, Gary Johnson Among Those Not Keen on U.S. Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki

Anwar al-Awlaki is dead; and on the occasion of the deliberate targeting and killing of an American citizen by the American government, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is less than excited about the precedent that may have been set.

“The protections under the Constitution for those accused of crimes do not just apply to people we like — they apply to everyone, including a terrorist like al-Awlaki. It is a question of due process for American citizens.

The rest of Johnson’s response here.

Texas Congressman and fellow GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul made lots more headlines when he dubbed the killing of terrorist friend and inciter Awlaki (and another American citizen) an assassination. In contrast with the other potential presidents besides Johnson, Paul thought this didn’t bode well for America, saying:

“No one knows if [Awlaki] killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the ‘underwear bomber.’ But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys. I think it’s sad.”

Paul pointed out how domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh got a trial, appeals, and an execution, and said that’s what should have been done with Awlaki.

So it’s not DID Awlaki need killing, it’s a question of was it legal to do it in the manner in which it was done… if we as a nation toss out the rule of law to appease a objective then you have to ask where does it stop? What other laws can the government break to appease an objective? This time it’s killing the terrorist Awlaki next time it maybe your constitutional rights of free speech. Just because someone breaks the law doesn’t give you or the government the right to break the law to deliver justice. If Obama thinks you can just do what you need to do when ever you need to do where would it stop?

We have a constitution, it is a the law of the land and if you circumvent the law of the land to achieve a goal is that not criminal too?

Think about it.

September 22, 2011

Elizabeth Warren and liberal logic…

Elizabeth Warren was an Obama adviser; currently a Harvard Law Professor and she is now running against Scott Brown in Massachusetts for the US Senate… listen to this women and see all that is wrong with liberals and liberalism (the real crazy stuff starts about the minute mark).

Have your duct tape ready…

YouTube Preview Image

Hey Elizabeth, were did the money come from to build those roads, those schools and hire those cops and firefighters? Who made the equipment to build the road, the uniforms and the desk and books for the schools? Tell me Elizabeth without those factories where would the money to pay for and the equipment to build it come from? Without factories, without workers, without the capital they earn and the capital the government takes from them in taxes the government wouldn’t have a damn dime. The government may print money but it doesn’t make money nor give it value – people like Warren and Obama believe all money is the government and only they can decide how much you get to keep. Clearly she has never read nor understands the constitution or the basics of economics .

Now here is a question I have the I haven’t heard asked… if business needs government then why does government offer business tax breaks to locate within their taxation area? The liberals want business and government to be enemies and in reality it should be a symbiotic relationship – business needs infrastructure to thrive and government needs a tax base to in order to pay to build that infrastructure… if a government becomes burdensome and hostile to business then that business will close up and move elsewhere leaving many of their citizens out of work and reducing their tax base.

Obama’s economic policies are evidence of that.

This women was a presidential adviser, she is a law professor at Harvard and we wonder why this country is in the shape it’s in? My Gawd she is an idiot an absolute 100% certifiable idiot.

Liberalism or should I say socialism and business it just doesn’t mix.

September 13, 2011

Polly wanna bill…rrraawkk

I’ve only seen bits and pieces of this bill – hopefully they’ll post it online.

First it’s not paid for until congress figures out how to pay for it – which will never happen.

I swear Obama sound like a parrot… rrraawkk pass the bill, pass the bill, rrraawkk pass the bill, pass the bill… well whats in the bill? Besides more unfunded stimulus. This ass thinks he can say jump and congress and the American people are going to say “how high?” Sorry buttwipe St. Happin’…

In a nutshell all this bill is about is raising taxes on job creators those “millionaires and billionaires” making over $200,000 – frankly I never knew I $200K was a billionaire. The things you learn from an idiot.

About the rrraawkk pass the bill, pass the bill, rrraawkk pass the bill, pass the bill

One of the the things I heard is creating yet another victim class out of the unemployed.

American Jobs Act Would Ban Discrimination Against Jobless

The jobs package President Obama sent to Congress on Monday includes a ban on hiring discrimination against the jobless.

Well what if that are just not qualified for the job? Do you think any employer is going to call someone for an interview that has been out of work over 6 months if they run the risk of getting sued? And they wonder why Blacks do get as many calls as White… law suits and liabilities. They cost money and if you could go broke for not hiring someone – you just don’t call and you don’t open yourself up to that liability. We need to end victim class and not create another one.

But Obama wants another victim class rraawkk pass the bill… pass the bill. Giving tax credits to hire employees when none are needed is just… well stupid. Why would an employer shell out and commit to hiring someone for say $40K or $50K (including benefits) for a crappy little $4000 one time tax credit? It’s… well stupid.

This asshole also wants to extend unemployment AGAIN at some point the gravy train runs out. I’m sorry for folks that are unemployed but most find jobs pretty quick when their unemployment runs out. So to extend it again after 99 weeks is… well stupid.

This rraawkk pass the bill also ends a lot of charitable contributions – I guess Obama only wants the wealth shared on his terms after he takes a cut.

It goes on and on with more and more stupid ideas… this rraawkk pass the bill is a product of an idiot that knows nothing about business, nothing about jobs!

Rrraawkk pass the bill, tax the rich, rrrawkk. Moron.

I’m not going to waste a lot of time on this because most of this rrraawkk pass the bill, tax the rich, rrrawkk is DOA, only an idiot would raise taxes and remove charitable contributions in a recession.

This is nothing but a campaign move to try and save a failing presidency… it won’t work.

The American Jobs Act of 2011: Lather, Rinse, Repeat and Fail
The American Jobs Act: Why It Will Not Create Jobs

Rraawkk kill the bill rrraawkk

August 22, 2011

Religion and Politics

It has always been said that religion and politics makes strange bed fellows – it is also said you should never talk about either. Well I’m going to – if you’ve read this blog for any amount of time you likely know I rarely ever bring up or talk about religion and that’s because I believe religion is personal and unique to each and every person and it doesn’t matter what you say about it somebody is not going to be happy and they will either pray for your soul or resign you to the fiery the depths. Religion is far more of volatile a subject than politics every thought about being.

Politics, generally falls into one faith regardless of party – the belief that if it’s not broke, Washington can break it, how it gets broke is a matter of party but it will be broken.

As for religion – I don’t know why the Republican party always gets trapped in to these religious debates all the time – like Rick Perry with the child abusing libtard using her kid as a hand puppet to ask about creationism verses Darwinism, frankly it’s non of her damn business what he thinks. I want a president that can create jobs and fix the economy – not one to settle the chicken or the egg debate it just doesn’t matter.

They tried to sucker Michelle Bachmann into a ‘how do you feel about gays’ debate – I don’t care how Michele Backmann feels about gays unless somehow the gay issue fixes the economy and gets this country back on sound fiscal ground. It doesn’t matter!

The liberals are trying to make an issue out of Romney being a Mormon – they said that the Christians would never go for that – do what? Mormons are Christian’s they are just like the Catholics… they have a Bible with a few extra books. So what! It just doesn’t matter!

Barack Obama when to a radical Black Liberation Theology church that preached “God damn America” and I find that far more offensive than the creationism, gay rights and Mormon debate but the MSM let him slide on it and he was rarely questioned. When his preacher got even to radical for Obama, he threw him under the bus all while saying “Oh yeah I sat in his church for 20 years, but I never really listened.” A church that teaches hate of America, of racism, of class warfare is far more dangerous than one teaching creationism, gay lifestyle or is Mormon in my book any day.

And sometime the Bible thumpers on the right really annoy me to the point I have to say to them… this elections is about spending and constitutional government, not freaking theology. I like my hardcore Bible buddies and I’ll talk religion and the philosophy and mythology of it all day long – just don’t make it a campaign issue of it – it’s like playing with matches wear doused in gasoline, stupid.

But for what ever reason the Republics get sucked into these stupid Biblical debates every time… and frankly I don’t think America as a whole really give a rip all that much about the social issues other than the amount of spending they incur on the taxpayer. Do you honestly care if someone is gay? Do you honestly care if some believes in evolution over creationism? Does it effect your life in any way, shape or form? Do you care if your President is Mormon, Christian, Jewish or Atheist as long as the well being and security of the country is being met and they are keeping government out of your life?

This issues of religion are nothing but distractions from the greater concerns – we need the debt addressed, we need the spending addressed, we need job created, we need cost of goods and services to be affordable and I don’t give a rats ass if you have to pray to Aqua Buddha to make it happen just do it.

The Republicans need to stop taking the bait every time a liberal idiots tries to trap them with some “gotcha” bullshit religious question and just state that their religious views are just like everyone elses personally unique and private – next question please.

Will it prompt more questions? Sure it will but if you never take the bait, they’ll stop fishing.

August 2, 2011

Don’t you know you’re an idiot?

Well the government thinks you are…

With the debt debate going on government as usual is trying to pull a fast one – the villainizing of the member of the Tea Party by the left, the elitist right, the old guard and the media is prove of the power they wield. Their complaint has been they can’t be bought off with ear marks, committee appointment or fund raising – and some how we’re being told this is a big thing.

The debt agreement is the same old trick – no real cuts, just empty promises not to spend more at some date in the future that never arrives. It like how The Hill described it

No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it.  Instead, the “cuts” being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases.  This is akin to a family “saving” $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda.  But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about their unrepentant plundering of the American people.

The Democrats have put their spin game into wrap speed and as Reagan once said the Democrats never met a tax they didn’t raise. I’ll take it one step further and say the Democrats never found a lie they wouldn’t tell or fit they wouldn’t throw. They have accused the Tea Party of being terrorist and hold American hostage… well did it work? In a word – NO… A recent very liberal Washington Post poll showed the that among the so-called all important voting block Independents the Tea Party while damaged was not damaged as badly as the other political groups…

So yes the Tea Party took a -21% hit with Independents, but it was less then any of the other players and being that this poll is from the Washington Post I’m going to say that Democrats were likely over sampled. Since they didn’t offer a break down of their demographics we’ll never know.

But the short of the long of it is that the liberals vicious attacks on the Tea Party is all the prove you need that they are afraid of them, which means they are afraid of the American people – the liberals will always tell you who they fear by the level of their attacks on them. You might remember it really wasn’t that long ago that the Tea Party wasn’t even mentioned in Washington, they didn’t matter enough – how things change. 2012 is just around the corner.

I’ll have more on the liberals and the tea party in my next post…

July 17, 2011

The words of Adrian Rogers….

Filed under: FYI,Random Thoughts — Tags: , , , , , , — AWG @ 9:40 am

A quote that is more relative today than when first said by Adrian Rogers in 1984…

Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.  And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can’t give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody. And when half of the people get the idea they don’t have to work because the other half’s going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea it does no good to work because somebody’s going to get what I work for. That, dear friend, is about the end of any nation.

I have nothing to add to that.

June 17, 2011

How free is your state?

Filed under: FYI — Tags: , , — AWG @ 9:33 am

Freedom in the 50 States

My current state is 32… yet another reason I seriously doubt I’ll retire here… I can go 10 miles south and be in #16 Tennessee. Indiana is #3 and I was born there but no offense to my Hoosier friends… I’ve never been a big fan.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress

26 visitors online now
10 guests, 16 bots, 0 members
Max visitors today: 34 at 03:19 pm UTC
This month: 67 at 05-08-2013 12:05 pm UTC
This year: 95 at 04-19-2013 07:09 pm UTC
All time: 365 at 03-16-2012 03:55 pm UTC

© 2008-2013 The Angry White Guy All Rights Reserved