Category Archives: Michelle Malkin
Robin Hood is a heroic story of conservative principles, I’ve said that before on this blog.
Now the only real bright point of that Kevin Costner film that clip above is from is Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham. Especially his death scene.* It’s a crappy movie, but if you don’t judge my brain candy, I won’t judge you for that time you watched Jersey Shore.
The quality of the movie, or lack there of, isn’t the point of this post though.
You see, the Obama administration has effectively placed themselves as the Sheriff of Nottingham in America’s little version of Robin Hood.
They even threatened Christmas! What kind of monster does that?!
A new report from the National Economic Council and the Council of Economic Advisers timed to the online shopping holiday “cyber Monday” estimated that consumers could spend close to $200 billion less, while GDP growth could slow by 1.4 percentage points in 2013.
The report also warns that the psychological impact of a looming middle class tax hike could put a huge dent in retail sales over the holidays — traditionally the most important retail period of the year.
“Consumer confidence over the next several weeks is particularly important,” the report warns. “If Congress does not act on the president’s plan to extend tax cuts for the middle-class, it will be risking one of the key contributors to growth and jobs in our economy at the most important time of the year for retail stores.”
As Doug Powers said in his article on MichelleMalkin.com: Raise taxes on the rich or Christmas gets it!
The funny thing about this is that the article was published on Politico on the 26th, but on the 25th Politico reported that there was a “Record start for holiday season”.
It’s estimated that U.S. shoppers hit stores and websites at record numbers over the four-day Thanksgiving weekend, according to a survey released by the National Retail Federation on Sunday.
All told, a record 247 million shoppers visited stores and websites over the four-day weekend starting Thanksgiving, up 9.2 percent of last year, according to a survey of 4,000 shoppers that was conducted by research firm BIGinsight for the trade group. Americans spent more too: The average holiday shopper spent $423 over the entire weekend, up from $398. Total spending over the four-day weekend totaled $59.1 billion, up 12.8 percent from 2011.
Hmm…so which is it Obama? Is the looming fiscal cliff really going to effect consumers that much? Because it seems like it isn’t doing much at all.
I argue that is because the majority of American’s are morons, I’m certianly not out spending tons of money this Holiday season, but then again my argument is confirmed by Obama winning the election.
People are idiots and sales will continue to pull them in. They are spending MORE now than they were in years previous, which means your little threats that Christmas will be ruined if we don’t let you raise taxes, we’re not buying it Scrooge.
Stop threatening to call of Christmas and do your damn job.
I’m on Robin Hood’s side here. If you are going to raise my taxes, I’m probably not going to be spending much at all. You can’t spend my money better than I can, especially not in the Holiday season. A welfare check doesn’t mean quite as much as buying my sister that new Taylor Swift songbook** and it doesn’t look as nice when wrapped up under the tree.
*Because if there is one thing Alan Rickman is fantastic at, it’s overblown death scenes.
**Here’s hoping she doesn’t read this blog.
“Actually, sweety-pie, if a statement is blatantly satirical (as mine was) then it’s not defamation. So, piss off. “
Yeah, so that happened on twitter tonight. It was a response to me calling out a guy who goes by the handle “amazingatheist” (a real credit to Atheists, I’m sure the non-assholes ones that respect women really love you.) when he posted something that was clearly libel and was not blatantly satirical, as he obviously does not like Andrew Breitbart (who the original comment was aimed at), the comment contained no hint that it was meant satirically, and his twitter is not a satirical twitter page. Therefore, as I said, libel.
After he called me sweety-pie, which isn’t something I would put up with anyone calling me, let alone some liberal idiot on a twitter page, I told him not to talk down to me by using such language in reference to me. At which point he preceded to call me “snuggle-bug” and “sugarplum”. I actually felt like I needed to take a shower after that. I mean…eww.
What’s worse is that someone called this guy witty!
Uh, what? Vulgar libel against an active political commentator, misogynistic debating practices, and creepiness equals clever now? I seemed to have missed that definition of wittiness.
This isn’t the first time this has happened to me when debating liberals. It isn’t the first time I’ve seen it happen to others. Michelle Malkin and SE Cupp are both regularly attacked with misogynistic and racist rhetoric.
And then let’s start with the blatant anti-semitism that is all over the place at the Occupy Wall Street protests and the Liberal political agenda in general.
As for homophobia. How about this video here, where an occupy wall street protestor (I thought they were all liberal, equality is good, love everyone except the rich, types?) calls the man making the video a faggot. Or the post I wrote detailing how I found the President’s decision that, suddenly, when gay marriage came up…that state’s rights became a big deal for him…and how I found that a bit fishy. Or this attempt to push gay people into seeing homophobia as the same thing as Islamophobia…I mean, really?
And it goes on and on and on.
May I remind those that have forgotten, or educate those who were never taught, of something important. Which party was it that opposed the abolition of slavery? That’s right, the Democrats. Which president was it who, when elected, opposed Women’s suffrage…and, in fact, opposed it until it became unpopular to do so? That’s right, Democrat Woodrow Wilson. All these stories about Democrats paving the way toward social change…they really aren’t true. They talk a big talk these days, they subsidize a lot of federal aid which keeps people “on the dole” as the Brits say, but they don’t really walk the walk.
I mean, when I feel less vicitimized by my mother’s distaste for my homosexuality than I do by the gay liberal’s hatred for my being a gay conservative…clearly something is rotten in the state of Denmark. For a party of acceptance, I see more hate, insults, and vitriol from political liberals than I do from political conservatives.
Feel free to leave more instances of misogyny, racism, and homophobia from the left in the comments below. I can hardly keep up with the whole of the internet.
We cover a lot of topics and a lot of time line in my Journalism class. In the last class I attended we talked about several editors of major “penny-press” newspapers from the mid to late 19th century. One of these editors was a man named Henry Raymond, his newspaper…The New York Times.
Raymond ran a different sort of paper than many of the other Penny Presses at that time, many of the other papers were very partisan…not to any particular political group, but to the views of the individual editors. Horace Greeley for instance, a man whose paper was so popular that, in the mid-west, it was “next to the Bible” in importance, refused to cover criminal cases or the theater…because he believed such things were immoral and would corrupt the morals of his readers.
Raymond wrote about everything. He favored, as my teacher’s power-point said, “fair, careful, accurate reporting, especially foreign news.” He was non-partisan and dispassionate about politics and news in general. In his own politics he was sometimes conservative, sometimes radical, but always a champion of the public good and a supporter of the constitution.
Editorially, Raymond sought a niche between Greeley’s open partisanship and Bennett’s party-neutrality. In the first issue of the Times Raymond announced his purpose to write in temperate and measured language and to get into a passion as rarely as possible. “There are few things in this world which it is worthwhile to get angry about; and they are just the things anger will not improve.” In controversy he meant to avoid abusive language. His editorials were generally cautious, impersonal, and finished in form.
Raymond’s moderation was evident during the period after President Lincoln’s election and before his nomination. He wrote Alabama secessionist William L. Yancey: “We shall stand on the Constitution which our fathers made. We shall not make a new one, nor shall we permit any human power to destroy the one….We seek no war — we shall wage no war except in defense of the constitution and against its foes. But we have a country and a constitutional government. We know its worth to us and to mankind, and in case of necessity we are ready to test its strength.”
- From wikipedia (Yeah, yeah, I know…)
What would Henry Raymond think of the modern version of his penny-press newspaper today?
I’m a big fan of partisan blogs and editorials, I read S.E.Cupp, Michelle Malkin, Dirty Sex and Politics, and The Conservative New Ager. I watch O’Reilly and Red Eye and listen to Glenn Beck.
But I know they are partisan, I realize that and I do my best to hear the other side of the issue as well. I also realize that, while what they may report on may be rooted in factual events, it is heavily colored by their personal opinions and it is not journalism.
What you expect to get from The New York Times is Journalism, objective, fact based, rooted in reality, terms defined, and biases removed. Henry Raymond strove for that, even while he strove to support his country…or his country’s constitution (which these days can be two different things sadly).
Henry Raymond is likely spinning in his grave these days with ever partisan article that rolls of the presses at that his, once bi-partisan and factual, newspaper. What a shame…