Monday, September 27, 2010

Gosh, Sharon Angle sure says stupid things about Autism and Pregnancy.

I want to see Harry Reid defeated so badly, but Sharon Angle is a blooming idiot. Is there a third choice on the ballot?

Ironically, the autism comment may have been a misspeak on Angle's part. I think what Angle might have been saying is that many different diagnoses might end up being labeled autism. However, autism itself can be an absolute torture for some parents to deal with in certain situations and Angle is on dangerous ground if she thinks the parents of truly autistic kids should be excluded.

But then Angle talks about maternity leave and somehow states that because she can no longer get pregnant why should she have to pay for others who might get pregnant. I mean, this is kind of stupid, and narcissistic, isn't it? If Angle doesn't have cancer, why should she pay for cancer protection? Oh, but she might still get cancer whereas she can never get pregnant because of age, is that Angle's argument?

When Angle was younger and COULD HAVE GOTTEN PREGNANT, she would have paid LESS for maternity leave coverage because everybody chipped in. Now that Angle can no longer get pregnant, she no longer wants to participate. This is called narcissism and egoism. If Angle wasn't against others helping to pay for maternity leave when she could get pregnant, but is against paying for it now that she can't get pregnant, she's just being an opportunist.

Until men start complaining about maternity leave, (and I pity the first male politician who does), I find it ridiculous for a woman to complain about maternity leave because they can no longer get pregnant.

The concept of insurance is that it is a pool of money that is supposed to help those who need it. What Angle is proposing is very dangerous because it creates "insurance a la carte".

But perhaps what is MOST ANNOYING about Angle's speech is how she quickly goes through these very complex issues. Even if Angle somehow actually can draw upon complex data and other examples that show why her position is valid, she shouldn't be treating these very important with such brevity.

Friday, September 24, 2010

Why is Lady Gaga's Meat Dress considered hip, but Sarah Palin standing in front of a Turkey Farm/Slaughterhouse draws a lot of flank?

Click here to see original photo source and article.


When I wrote about Sarah Palin standing in front of a Turkey Farm/Slaughterhouse in November of 2008, I pointed out that raising awareness of how Turkeys are slaughtered for our Thanksgiving enjoyment is not something Sarah Palin should get flack over.

"But, but, she didn't know what was going on in the background" clamored the liberal and progressive community. The truth is, Sarah Palin did not care what was in the background. In my opinion the reason Palin did not care about what was in the background was because we eat Turkeys, and this is how they are prepped. And yet, people like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC just ridiculed her to no end over the Turkey interview video.

Amazing the flack that Sarah Palin also took over the budget for her wardrobe during the 2008 presidential race. Maybe Lady Gaga's meat dress was "affordable".

So, what about Lady Gaga? Can someone explain why Lady Gaga gets a free pass from the MTV awards and the liberal media for wearing raw meat all over her body and then accepting an award dressed that way while Sarah Palin is vilified for doing an interview in front of a Turkey farm / slaughterhouse?

The two acts are inseparable, and yet, does the liberal media treat them in an equal light?

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Independent candidates like Jake Towne are getting WHACKED by the Republican and Democrat fear mongers.

Independent candidate Jake Towne is being denied access to a debate because he allegedly polled less than 5% of the vote. In an ironic twist to what happened in 2008 to Hillary Clinton; in which democrats over the age of 40 were marginalized in favor of the younger democratic voters, this poll basically excluded almost everyone under the age of 40, where Jake Towne is best known and polls strongest!

Can't we all just not do this crap anymore?

Independent candidates that are only taken seriously if they call themselves either a republican or democrat probably manifests itself somewhere in our country on a daily basis. Jake Towne would probably poll between 8%-18% if all demographics were evenly considered, and he should be allowed into the debate.

Even Ron Paul has run an article about Jake Towne's exclusion from an important debate. If you want to call and politely bug PBS-39 and others involved in this scandal, please click on the Ron Paul Link and politely let them have it. Remind them how it makes a PBS station look bad when we rely on them to be an alternative to the mainstream news stations.


Friday, September 17, 2010

Tea Party Puffery, just how many Independent candidates are actually going to be elected as Independents?

I'm confused about the tea party movement, but I refuse to spend time researching it. Aren't the tea partiers just going to end up becoming republicans?

How many INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES are actually going to win races in November?

It seems like the political system is rigged against independents. These pre-November political races are simply to elect the main political opponent to the politician in office. Even if the politician in office loses during their own parties nomination, it is still to another candidate from their own party.

If an Independent candidate can only knock off a democratic incumbent by running as a democrat, or by defeating the democrat in the fall after first knocking off the republican favorite, I consider the tea party movement to be a whole lot of puffery because they have to become part of the very parties they scorn, to have an impact.

Yes, some incumbent democratic candidates have decided not run for re-election, but once again, where does the independent candidate fit into the picture?

When November comes, isn't it possible that "rogue republican voters" will vote democrat because they don't like the tea party candidate that defeated the more well known republican earlier in the year? Isn't it also possible the democrats will vote democrat out of fear of the "crazy" tea party republican candidates?

If republican and democratic voters actually saw the word INDEPENDENT next to a political challenger's name, then I could see an actual tea party movement happening. But if tea party candidates are simply infiltrating either republican or democratic parties, it seems to me they could be defeated by a loose consortium of democrats and republicans who don't want tea party change.

Sarah Palin should have run for governor of California this year, won, and then proved to all of us that she can handle a big state. I know Bill Clinton governed a small state, and Barack Obama has never even governed, but Sarah Palin burst upon the national scene and was kind of forced to "fake it" in the heat of the moment, kind of the way Barack Obama did in 2008.

Until I see Sarah Palin actually govern when all the focus is on her, I'm not sure she is actually ready to be a viable president. A perfect example of only leading when the focus is not on you, and then becoming president is, Barack Obama.

Barack Obama may have used his street smarts and deep pockets backers to get elected, and Sarah Palin may have her snow smarts, but neither at this point is what this country really needs in its next leader.

I just don't think Sarah Palin is remotely qualified to be president when I compare her experience with that of Hillary Clinton's. I feel Palin is leading a "movement" that isn't genuine when an independent is forced to call themselves a republican to win.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Alleged shotgun assailant George Hartwig, are his Social Security Disability Benefits being used to pay Defense Attorney Brian J. Neary's fees?

For most recent DailyPUMA article please click here.  For more recent information abut Louis Rodas, please click here.  For even more recent information about Louisa, please click here.

Is it ethical for our government to pay SSI disability benefits to people such as George Hartwig, who then go around allegedly beating and shooting, and permanently maiming hard working american citizens?

Is it ethical to allow George Hartwig's SSI disability payments to then be used to pay the attorneys fees for a highly regarded criminal trial lawyer Brian J. Neary, so that Mr. Hartwig can fight for a reduced sentence while his alleged victim, Louisa Rodas, has been permanently disfigured, maimed, and rendered to an almost vegetative state?

If Mr. Neary is being paid either directly or indirectly from Mr. Hartwig's SSI disability payments, should not the government be sued for paying benefits to those who carry and use weapons against other american citizens?

Is this not the government funding of terrorists against their own citizens?

Can this insanity be altered just a bit? Can Mr. Hartwig's SSI benefits be transferred to the family of Louisa Rodas for her caretaking and for the hours of daily rehab her family engages with her to try and see if some of her former functions might come back?

Can the transfer IMMEDIATE transfer of SSI disabilty benefits from Mr. Hartwig to the alleged victims family be part of any "plea deal", along with the part where Mr. Hartwig stays in jail for a very very very very very long time? Can we get it right this time?

Please?

And is it time to pass a law that people receiving disability payments from the government who then shoot other people in their own home perhaps have their disability payments transferred to the victims family?



Monday, September 13, 2010

Handicapped Tennis Star Esther Vergeer is the best female tennis player in the world.


CBS has a nice story about Esther Vergeer but I could not find the video of it. Click here for the article. I don't understand why network television cannot find half an hour to cover her play, she is fantastic and would probably beat most "able bodied" tennis players.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Chicago Dentist runs ad supporting Hillary Clinton for President in 2012.


As I stated in a previous article, Hillary Clinton will need a political news channel that won't go in the tank for the biggest democratic progressive spending candidate, (and well before the democratic presidential race was actually decided), which is what happened in 2008.

However, since most new prime time television programming is aimed at the under 35-40 years of age crowd, it becomes difficult to then run news programming aimed at the over 35-40 crowd. Even the late night stand up comedians cater their comedy to the younger people, and of course, part of their "comedy" includes making fun of Hillary Clinton.

There is a built in television production cycle that is funded by Wall Street and the bankster industry and their desire is to financially indenture younger people because revolving credit card debt from a 20 something is the most profitable type of debt there is.

Fox Television is the perfect model of what is needed for the Hillary Clinton voter base, but Fox is primarily a republican channel and even if Fox ran stories exposing the lying and deceit of the democratic party, it would not be reaching the right demographic base.

Another channel is needed. TV Land is catering to the over 35 crowd, but they are somewhat rudderless and clueless and would need to be "guided" into a nightly news programming show that would simply reveal what MSNBC refuses to reveal.

Click here for CNN Story. The comments section was closed very quickly as many Hillary Clinton supporters began commenting.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

What is going on with Target? Target's Credit Card interest rates are outrageous, next is a crazy coupon offer for a free WHITE BREAD loaf.


Target seems to be going downhill fast (in my opinion). It appears that Target is using profits from excessive credit card interest rate charges so Target can promote their own political agenda and political lobbying. Target customers are being charged 23-24% interest rates on their Target credit card!

When a retail company entraps their own customers at 23-24% interest, not only do they suck their customers dry of spendable cash, the store is also siphoning their own customers spendable money to buy products in their own store!

Customers owing 1,500 dollars on a Target Credit Card will pay 29 dollars every month in INTEREST RATE charges alone! The problem is if the customer spends 50 bucks a month at a Target Store, over half of their spendable money will now go towards paying ongoing, never ending unseemly credit card interest rate charges. We're talking 358 dollars a year in interest rate charges alone on a 1,500 dollar debt.

Since when is it good for a company to dilute the spending dollars of their own customers so they buy less products in their store because of huge interest rate charges? Might as well call themselves Target Bank and focus on ripping customers off with excessive fees and interest rate charges and forgo selling products in their store at all.

If Target is concerned that customers are running up debt they may never pay off, there are logical solutions. Offer incentives to those who PAY DOWN their debt. If the customers refuse, then keep the interest rate charges where they are at.

If I were a vendor who sold to Target, I would be upset knowing that the Target Customer base is being skimmed off the top by Target's own credit card interest rate charges to the tune of 23-24% monthly interest rate charges.
The obvious solution is to NOT USE the Target Credit card and pay it off, or pay down the debt and then LOWER the Target card's credit line to a very low amount, say, 250 dollars, max. In both instances, the goal is to reduce Target's ability to rip off the consumer with ridiculously high interest rate charges.
My source tells me that Target is actively trying to recruit new customers to use their credit card and its overinflated interest rate charges. It is sad to me how much the media reports about wall street, and how companies like Target have to victimize their core customer base just to make it look like they are profitable. Profitability at the expense of their own customer base makes Target a company I no longer see as my number one alternative to Wal Mart.

As bad as Target's Credit Card interest rate charges have become, now Target is offering a store coupon to its own customers for a free 20 or 24 ounce loaf of white bread in a day and age when white bread has become passe. I plan on trying to convert my free 20 or 24 ounce Target Pantry white bread coupon to whole wheat. The fact that it appears that I don't get a choice seems to be Target's new way of operating.

Share Gadget

10,000 Dollar Grant! Another Great Find from FABULOUSLY40.com

10,000 Dollar Grant! Another Great Find from FABULOUSLY40.com
Would this be a good way to win funds for Louisa's Law ?