Saturday, June 30, 2012

Mitt Romney ad bungles the use of Hillary Clinton, and badly.


On April 7th, 2012 Barack Obama launched a pre-emptive strike against the Republicans and their alleged dislike of women. Below, the Republicans have now responded by using the idea I presented on March 22, 2012, but have botched the message so badly they have damaged themselves and Hillary Clinton, while making Barack Obama look like the victim.




This ad falls so far short of what it could have been that the Republicans have apparently blown their wad on the Hillary Clinton angle and not only gotten nothing out of it, they will probably cause lose ground as a result. 


But what can be expected from the party that harbors Clinton Derangement Syndrome. 

Hey republican party, I'm available for a huge consultation fee if you want to get this ad right (and I am a regional emmy winning producer/director with well over 30 film awards to boot who also had his own video editing company and studio running at full throttle for over 10 years).  As it stands right now you, you spent a wad of money and actually lost ground in the process, wow.


If Romney does not fix this Hillary Clinton ad and do it right, it may show a lack of ability in selecting the right people to do the job since it is obvious to me that whomever did this commercial is way in over their head, and that could propel me to either not vote, or vote third party instead.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Friday, June 29, 2012

Supreme Court Justice Roberts confuses taxes and penalties in regards to Obama Care.

(Edit Note: July 2nd, 12:25pm, 2012) Apparently, if one does not pay the healthcare premium, the IRS declares the amount of the premium as income, meaning it turns into a percentage tax. So, I WAS WRONG, but I was also right in that I thought the "tax should be in the 1/10% to 35% range", which it is.


------------------------------------------


Apparently Justice Roberts believes that if someone does not want Obama Care, they must pay a "tax" equal to the annual premium cost of Obama Care on a yearly basis. 

A 100% tax is basically unheard of. 

As onerous as taxes can be, taxes generally fall within a wide ranging percentage window of 1/10% to 35%.

In essence a tax is a PORTION of the service, product or property access permission that it is attached to.
What Justice Roberts did was confuse taxes and penalties. 
Roberts should have ruled that anyone who did not want Obama Care could opt out and pay a penalty instead. The penalty would probably be anywhere from 10% to 25% of the annual premium for Obama Care.

While I would still consider this to be unfair, it still is much more reasonable than simply telling someone you have to pay the same amount if you don't use a service as you would if you do use the service.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Unanswered Obama Care questions. Check DailyPUMA out for divergent responses to today's Supreme Court Healthcare Ruling.

(Edit Note: July 2nd, 12:29pm, 2012) Apparently, if one does not pay the healthcare premium, the IRS declares the amount of the premium as income, meaning it turns into a percentage tax. So, I WAS WRONG, but I was also right when I posted my next article about this decision and stated the "tax should be in the 1/10% to 35% range", which it is.


The problem with the supreme court calling the Healthcare Reform act a Tax is the supreme court has validated a Breathing Tax, since it appears there are no methods to avoid the Tax based on changing one's behavior. 

I would have liked some provisions added to the Healthcare "breathing" Tax. 
  1. If you smoke, 
  2. drink excessively, 
  3. are more than 20 pounds overweight, 
  4. or can't walk a mile (and are under the age of 65 of course),

Then you must pay the HealthCare Tax.

These simple provisions give people an opt out option if they CHOOSE to avoid the HealthCare Tax, AKA, GET HEALTHIER THAN YOU ARE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO PAY THE HEALTHCARE TAX.

Choice, aka Choose, being the key aspect. You can't choose to breathe, you either do, or you die, and with this ruling, it appears the supreme court has taken away any and all opt out clauses to avoid paying the healthcare breathing tax, for everybody.

Most, if not all taxes are based on the creation of some type of product, service, or income. In the instance of the healthcare breathing tax, none of those three criteria have been met, you simply pay the healthcare tax, and you don't have a choice.

Even state car insurance laws that force people to carry car insurance only apply IF YOU DRIVE A CAR. If motivated, one could find a place to work near where they live, and walk, ride a bike, or take public transportation if they were MOTIVATED to opt out of the car insurance tax.

Not allowing americans the right to opt out of the healthcare breathing tax through hard work and righteous living is a pre-existing condition first formulated within the great credit card consumer debt wealth extraction caper that continues to this day.

There are literally tens of millions of americans who could begin reducing their overall credit card debt levels if the interest rate on their existing credit card debts were lowered. Rather than offer a low interest rate credit card debt payoff incentive program so people can work their way out of debt, none is offered and instead people are headed further into debt and financial ruin.
Is healthcare transparency being forced down every single american a transparency that all of our elected officials will follow as well? 
Yet, for elected officials, the cost for their healthcare  breathing tax coverage versus what they make every year will dwarf what it will cost the sinking lower class since it most likely will be illegal to charge one person a higher breathing tax premium simply because they make more money.
Sometimes citizens mistake freedom with the right to be irresponsible, knowing that if they really screw up the government will save them anyways. 

However, our government seems to have ignored the concept of the right to opt out, and does not see or believe in it's own people's ability, or right, to EARN the right to opt out, EARN as in not by making money and paying an involuntary breathing tax, but avoiding the breathing tax by hard work and personal responsibility towards maintaining a healthier body. 

And that, is cruel and inhuman punishment.


Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

"The best intentioned man". Holy Crap, can we tone down the man hating militant feminism just a bit?

A quote from a former 2008 Hillary Clinton blogger turned Obot, with a huge dash of man hating militant feminism thrown in, and, here is the quote ...
Even the best intentioned man can get pulled back into the old boys club after a number of years of marriage and fatherhood. The media, their jobs and the entertainment industry absolutely empower them to be reckless with their family relationships.”
Holy Crap, what is the female version of “mansplain”?
Even the best intentioned man?  
As in, even the best intentioned man is still lower than the worst intentioned woman? 


Probably every guy out there knows at least one male friend who got ROYALLY SCREWED OVER in a divorce settlement.

I'll go one step farther, probably every guy out there knows at least one male friend who got ROYALLY SCREWED OVER in a divorce settlement because the woman never grew up from being daddy's little girl and compared her husband's ability to "provide" to daddy's ability to provide, and divorced her husband as a result. 

Thus leaving "the best intentioned man" penniless as he now pays alimony for his ex-wife, the kids, their place of living, and his own place to live, and taxes to the government as well.  

Meanwhile "the best intentioned man's" ex-wife flits around in a new relationship, milking all the empathy (and alimony money, alimoney?) she can out of being the victim of a divorce she initiated against "the best intentioned men"

I bet there are five million "best intentioned man" in the United States walking around in a hypberbolic daze, stunned at the loss of everything they cared about in life, yet having to work two jobs to survive as a result. 

I bet the men hating militant feminism who adore Hillary Clinton never mention these five million "best intentioned males" when they whip their own feminist minions into a man hating frenzy.

"Even the best intentioned man". Does one really get how condemning, elitist, and insufferable that five word phrase really is?  


I do.  


Instead of using a more calming, cast the net over a portion of the male population such as, "some men", or "some well intentioned men", the phrase is an all encompassing all men all the time, EVEN THE BEST INTENTIONED MAN means the best of the best, as in, Even the best of the best man, is still a scumbag waiting to inhale. 


And what better source than a man hating feminist blogger who allegedly likes Hillary Clinton.

I'm begging all men hating militant feminists who allegedly love Hillary Clinton to just admit that is what you are (perhaps leave out Hillary Clinton's name?) and identify yourself on your blog that way. 

Do it for Hillary Clinton, PLEASE.  Every man hating militant feminist blogger who is for Hillary Clinton is scaring away hundreds of men from ever voting for Hillary Clinton.
My question to the men hating militant feminist bloggers, are you really worth the amount of votes you cause Hillary Clinton to lose?

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

The Hillary Clinton Blogging Hypocrites, well over 90%, how sad.

Check out all the alleged Hillary Clinton support blogs from 2008 by clicking here. Virtually all gone, and the few that remain didn't have the guts to stand loud and proud for Hillary Clinton in 2012. 

Wow.


The idea was really kind of a no-brainer, just blog every now and then. Most blogging platforms are free if I'm not mistaken. If writing once a day was too much, if writing once a week was too much, if writing once a month was too month, how about one article every 2 to 3 months?

How about re-igniting your 2008 Hillary Clinton for President blog and just posting the following title, I want Hillary Clinton for President in 2012 and 2016. Or did you take you bat home with you so nobody else could play, you wuss.


I did a date specific (from Jan 2012 until the present) and blog only google search, using the phrase "Hillary Clinton for President", Other than DailyPUMA, NOBODY, NOBODY, has used that phrase on their blogs!


I then did a date specific (again from Jan 2012 until the present) and blog only google search for "Clinton for POTUS". I did not even put Hillary in front Clinton, just "Clinton for President", and there was only ONE blogger that had used the phrase in their blog! (aka that was Mad in the Middle).


How dare you 2008 Hillary Clinton blogging supporters for even one moment call yourself a Hillary Clinton supporter because of something you did four years. 


Do you have some other agenda?  What would cause you to not type  one article in 2012 with the phrase, Hillary Clinton for President in 2012, or, I want Hillary Clinton for President in 2012?


This is who you've let run roughshod over Hillary Clinton's reputation, read the comments section as well.

If you feel I've missed your blog in regards to writing "Clinton for President" in 2012, please let me know. If you realize you have been lulled into being a quitter, perhaps by the media, and are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore, then please, post a blog title asking, requesting, wanting, or demanding that Hillary Clinton be the democrat nominee in 2012 and 2016.




Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Matriarchy, Men, and their clash with Militant Feminism.

Fascinating interview, assuming that it is real, about the mosuo society in China that practices Matriarchy. While reading the article, one can see the irony of some of the situations that men are exposed to.

Some of the behavior expected of men, (like sleeping with a different woman every night), is considered typical, male brutish behavior in this society, yet the women in charge of this Chinese society require it!

The interview almost sounds made up. To the Militant Feminists out there, many males believe our own society is structured to protect the women. While our society may be a male dominated society in many ways, the legal system has put in place a way for woman to get a do over in their lives via divorce, even if it was their own behavior that mitigated the divorce.

Militant Feminist's never bring the "divorce for profit scheme" up either, which is why they lose  credibility.  Ask a militant feminist if a man has ever been screwed over in a divorce settlement, the feminist will just laugh because even if it were true, they just don't care.

How can militant feminism be taken seriously if it is so one sided?

There are likely millions of men who have been screwed over in a divorce. I bet any male reading this article knows of at least one male friend who got screwed over in a divorce.

A divorced male paying alimony in many ways is the new slave of our society. As for this particular article, most militant feminists would probably be upset at how easy it appears the men have it in a matriarchal society.

Here's another irony, some men would probably prefer living the mosuo way rather than putting their entire life and future into the arms of a woman who turns out to be a narcissistic dingbat, spoiled by first being daddy's little girl, then unable to accept that her man cannot provide the economic benefits, safety and comfort that daddy could.

What a horrible thing for some men to discover after a certain amount of time has lapsed in their marriage; some wives are still emotionally a child inside clinging to the happiness that daddy gave her, something their husband cannot match, resulting in a divorce so daddy's little girl can use alimony payments to have more fun out of life. (I am waiting on a 10 second dateline video clip that illustrates this point perfectly.)

The people probably most aware on how to have good relationships are probably militant feminists, but they are too busy being angry at men to do the world much good.


Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Nevada Media Bias in 2008 against Hillary Clinton exposed by Bill Clinton as he kicks a reporter's arse, Verbally and Intellectually.


It's just amazing how the ABC news reporter in this 2008 interview kept trying to pound Bill Clinton with a "Hillary should back off meme" on a Las Vegas caucus lawsuit filed by the teacher's union, a     lawsuit Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with.
Mark Matthews asks Bill Clinton, 
"If the Culinary Workers had not endorsed Obama, would they still be dealing with "it"? (aka the "lawsuit" filed by the teacher's union upset because their votes counted for 1/5th what the culinary union's vote counted)
My response,
"Of course they would still "be dealing with it", you moron reporter. The Obama camp would have filed a lawsuit about the unfairness of having the Vegas Strip caucus votes count for FIVE TIMES AS MUCH as those who voted off the strip and how it was politics as usual.
Bill Clinton's TRUTH in Responding.
"You know, "this is a one man (person), one vote country", and I amazed nobody like you (the reporter), ever, you should be offended by this. Do you think one person's vote should count five times as much as another?"
Reporter Mark Matthews of Oakland
"I think it looks as though, a lot of people, the Clinton campaign, the Clinton Supporters, (Clinton interrupts to correct the idiot reporter who appears bent on harassing  the Hillary Clinton campaign as he mistakenly attributes the Teacher's Union lawsuit with the Hillary Clinton campaign). 
Bill Clinton
So when you ask me that question, your position is, that you think the culinary workers votes should count. 
A. they should, it should be easier for them to vote then for anyone else in Nevada that has to work on Saturday, that's your first position, second, that when do they do vote, their vote should count for five times as much as everybody else, that's what the teachers have questioned. 
So if that's YOUR position, you have, get on your television station and say, "I don't care about the home mortgage crisis, all I care about is making sure that some voters have it easier than others, and that when they do vote, when it's already easier for them, their votes should count five times as much as others, that is your position.
If you want to take that position, get on the television and take it, don't be accusatory with me, I had nothing to do with this lawsuit.
Some people in Nevada are old fashioned, they think the rules should be the same for everybody, and everybody's vote should count the same. I had nothing to do with that lawsuit, and you know it.....
Bill Clinton (continued)
.....The state democratic party is in the position of defending a system that makes it easier for some people then others to vote, and counts those other votes five times as much, and they readily admit that no one knew, or could have known that at that time, that's the difference, and you should tell that.
How do you feel now, you moron reporter, and how is the state of  Nevada doing with the home foreclosure mess, you imbecile. lol, you aren't even from Nevada, you're from Oakland!

You did it to yourself, you stupid fuck head Reporter, and you fucked over Nevada's voters. The Reporter kind of looks like he had had a few too many of Obama's media buffets at the culinary worker's caucus votes, if you ask me.

And then ABC Reporter Matthews repeated two other Obama minion meme mimics, "It was already agreed to"...followed by "now you want to change the rule after the fact because you don't like the result", bullshit.

The real truth is this, anything Hillary Clinton did to stop Obama's bullshit tactics in 2008 would have been reported by the media as either "Hillary Clinton is afraid of Obama", or, "being the favorite is not enough for Hillary Clinton, she has to get her way on everything"...


It is called "Fair Reflection", you moron reporter. The democrat party crapped over that one big time in 2008, and continues to crap on their own Political doctrine of fair reflection in 2012.


Here is how the interview appeared on television. There are a couple of technical glitches in this youtube version, but that's all I have access to.



So, all that matters is what the rules are, NOT IF THE RULES ARE FAIR, OR REPRESENT FAIR-REFLECTION for the democrat party.  


On a final note, the judge did not rule on the lawsuit.  I don't have the  exact quote, but the gist of it was, "if the democrat party wants to have rules that might be perceived as unfair, that is their choice and he would not intervene."


As for the allegation that the 5 to 1 was false, wikipedia (a somewhat biased wikipedia) stated it was "only" 2 to 1, and I don't believe that either since Obama got 64% of the delgates but only 45% of the vote.  


What is so comical about that is Barack Obama won all the caucus states delegate votes by a "2 to 1" margin, even though Hillary Clinton was either leading or at worst, tied with Obama in ALL POLLS, even the ones taken just a day or two before the caucus vote.


Even more sickening, pollsters STOPPED taking polls because the end results of the caucuses kept be so out of step with their polling, the polling revealing Hillary Clinton was either tied or leading, then losing by a two to one margin in the actual caucus fraud setting.


Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Revisiting a 2008 Crap Post from Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher about Hillary Clinton "attacking" Move on Dot Org.



It's really important to understand how demonically narcissistic many in the progressive movement are. The progressives have destroyed the democrat party. A perfect example is the type of crap the progressives pulled in 2008.

Move on Dot Org was founded specifically because of the public lynching that the republican politicians inflicted on Bill Clinton during his second term in office. The purpose of Move on dot org was to protect future democrats against future attacks by whack a noodle republicans who usually can be found doing the very things they are attacking the democrats for doing.

Instead, Move on dot org was a key fulcrum point in turning the 2008 election to away from Hillary Clinton and to Barack Obama! 

There have been allegations that it was Move on Dot Org that helped swing the caucus vote to Obama. We're talking a 2-1 delegate margin of victory Obama got in all the caucus contests even though polls taken just days before in the caucus states usually showed Hillary Clinton either ahead or at worst, tied with Barack Obama.
The audacity of Move On Dot Org owing it's existence to Bill Clinton but using their political might to help defeat Hillary Clinton in 2008 is my TOP OUTRAGE from 2008. 
The idiots at Move on Dot org, to this day, still just don't get their own infidelity, arrogance and narcissism regarding the Clintons. Just a few months ago Move on dot org actually bragged about their role in demanding that Bill Clinton be "censured" back in the late 90's. That was big of them, wasn't it? (snark).

Fire Dog Lake, looks to me like an elitist progressive rag above the moderate liberal base of the democrat party, Firedoglake, may you rot for your role in getting Barack Obama elected over Hillary Clinton in 2008.


Click on Image to Enlarge.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Elizabeth Warren Preferred Over Hillary Clinton For President In 2016, Shows Poll Of Progressive Activists. And there you have IT, proof that Progressives are IDIOTS.

(Edit Update, Nov. 11, 2013) Apparently I screwed up the topic title link when I made it and the above title link goes directly to another page. Here is the link for this article here on DailyPUMA.

------------------------------------------------

And there you have it! PROOF that democrat progressives are as whack a noodle about their own parties agenda as neo conservatives are regarding the republican party agenda.

Both of these groups, progessives and neo conservatives, make up probably no more than 33% of the popular vote but have effectively DESTROYED the moderate middle of both parties and are the very reason the best presidential candidate for the job, Hillary Clinton, has been stopped in the past, and may be stopped in the future as well.


Elizabeth Warren Preferred Over Hillary Clinton For President In 2016, Shows Poll Of Progressive Activists

Saturday, June 16, 2012

In Politics, Ageism is far far worse than Sexism when it comes to electing a Female President.

Hillary Clinton has many strong females who support her. Unfortunately, many strong females are focusing more on sexism and less on ageism, and I think that may prevent Hillary Clinton from winning in 2016.

While women can make a solid case for how sexism keeps them down, there are some men who have been financially and emotionally brutalized by society as well. The end result is the focus on sexism drives a wedge between the sexes, whereas ageism does not. There are many in society who are both a victim of sexism, AND ageism.


If you are a woman over the age of 49 who is fighting against sexism, don't forget about ageism. Younger females may view older females as competition, so once a women hits her forties and feels politically motivated, focusing on ageism more so than sexism may result in a larger political base from which to try and make change. 


Proof of how ageism may have stopped Hillary Clinton in 2008 more so than sexism may be found in how demographics are used in the television ratings process.

We all can probably agree that the media played the biggest role in who would be the 2008 democrat presidential nominee. But it should also be noted that whom television shows pander to, is dictated by the age of the viewers, aka the demographics.

Age Demographics have been redefined by the television ratings system to completely marginalize everybody over the age of 49! This form of mathematical ageism is wreaking havoc on the buying, viewing, and voting power of those over the age of 49. 


Here's how math and ageism have combined forces to debilitate the power of those over the age of 49. Presently, television demographics are clustered into two groups of 18 to 49, and 50 to end of life.


The average age of everybody between the age of 18 to 49 is around 31 years of age. The average age of everybody between the age of 50 to end of life is around 60 to 62 years of age, and there in lies the problem, two demographic groups ARE NOT ENOUGH to fairly evaluate the buying, viewing and voting power of so many different age groups.

The problem is by dividing all adults into only two groups, the 35 to 49 group has been conveniently stolen by the demographers and included with viewers who are a lot younger. Additionally, the 50 to 62 age group, another solid buying demographic, has also been diluted by putting them in with seniors who may be living off of social security and not much else.

There really should be four age range television ratings demographics, not two, 18 to 33, 34 to 49, 50 to 65, and 65 to end of life. The 34 to 49 age range and the 50 to 65 age range should be used by the networks to see if shows that trend either "too old" or "too young" have any chance at all of building an audience in the two middle age ranges of 34 to 49 and 50 to 65.

Click on image to Enlarge.


Instead, by making television ratings only a "two horse race", the 50 and older crowd have been greatly marginalized by the television networks, resulting in ageism. The graphic above is a perfect example of ageism. 
In 2012, Harry's Law was NBC's highest viewed show, yet it was canceled because the 18 to 49 viewers were deemed too low. In essence, too many OLDER PEOPLE watched Harry's law, and their "vote" was thrown out in favor of a MUCH SMALLER younger vote that other shows were receiving.  
Sound Familar? Even the names are similar, What happens to "Harry's Law" now could influence what happens to "Hillary Clinton's Political Fate" in 2016.

What if there were four age range demographics instead of two? 


In the case of Harry's Law, what if the 34 to 49 and the 50 to 65 age range were slowly trending upwards in the ratings? Suddenly, the argument could be made that Harry's Law was either solid or gaining in THREE  of the four demographic categories, not one!  

It was much much easier for NBC to marginalize the 6.48 million viewers over the age of 49 who watch Harry's Law by only having two rating categories instead of four. 


NBC chose to focus on the extra 400,000 viewers between the age of 18 and 49 who watch Third Rock than watch Harry's Law, even though Third Rock gets 4.4 million LESS VIEWERS over the age of 49 than Harry's Law does!


The argument could be made that Third Rock was already in syndication, and therefore it made sense to renew the show since it was already making money in syndication. However, Harry's Law should do well in syndication in a couple of years, assuming there are more than two season's worth of shows to syndicate.

How well the media treats Hillary Clinton in 2016 may hinge on whether or not television ratings go back to a four category demographic ratings system. 


The marginalization of those over 49 will have a devastating affect on how television show content continues to be aimed at the younger viewer, which in turn will pressure all of the talk shows and cable news shows to skew their content towards their younger audiences as well, and that will not be a good thing for Hillary Clinton's political future. Ageism hurt Hillary Clinton in 2008, it will probably be worse in 2016.


Ageism appears to be running rampant in the present two demographic group ratings system, and this should be changed back to a four demographic group ratings system as soon as possible. 



Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Shocking allegation from DailyPUMA, did NBC cancel Harry's Law to avoid political commercials, which get the lowest commercial rate that the network has previously charged to their regular advertisers?

A friend who once owned a radio station told me that the one thing about political radio ads that he hated the most, he was required by law to charge them the lowest ad rate that he had charged for a regular commercial!


This is a big deal, lets say one month the radio station has several unfilled spots, so they want to give a super discount just to fill those spots. Apparently, that same rate must be given to political ads!

Assuming that television political ads are given the lowest placement costs the way that radio political ads are, (I apologize I don't know this for sure, that's what happens when you're an independent blogger) all one has to do is look at the Save Harry's Law Facebook page and see all the facebook ads on the right side of the column, they are all political ads! (at least they are for me, with facebook it's also dependent on who the viewer is).  



Is it possible that NBC realized that Harry's Law was going to get a TON of political ads between now and the 2012 election, and they did not want to be forced to sell their ads at the lowest cost?

If most of the people who visit the Save Harry's Law facebook page are seeing facebook political ads, then perhaps we can assume that someone at NBC with a bit too much power decided to cancel Harry's Law so that NBC would not be saddled with too many low cost political ads!

If this is allegation is even remotely true, heads should roll, fines should be levied, and frankly, whomever made such a cutthroat decision is a television executive terrorist who must be rooted out and removed.


There could be actual political motivations at play here. The case could be made that because Harry's Law is a show that democrats and independents might watch moreso than republicans (because of the defense attorney theme), that it would be a attractive show for republicans to run commercials to try and get democrats who are on the fence to vote republican this fall.


The ageism issue that is disenfranchising over 7.5 million aged fifty and over Harry's Law viewers because 1.5 million under aged fifty were not watching (it was 1.1 million) is appalling, and suspicious, and could very well be explained by NBC's desire to not allow Harry's law to be used for political ads.


Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

The Cancellation of Harry's Law, its Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign all over again.



Did you know that NBC cancelled their highest rated show recently? Did you know that NBC cancelled their highest rated show, "Harry's Law", because too many people over the age of 49 were watching the show!  Look above and below, and get a little bit angry, no?


Click on image above to enlarge. 
NBC cancelled their most viewed show, Harry's Law, by valuing the 1/2 million less viewers from ages 19 to 49 watching Harry's Law MORESO than the extra 4.4 MILLION VIEWERS over the age of 49 that was watching Harry's Law. When compared to Third Rock and other renewed shows on the list, I guess it takes about eight viewers over the age of 49 to NOT equal one viewer under the age of 50, WOW!

This is really just additional proof that the media uses numbers and methods that marginalize people over the age of 49, be it politics, such as the 2008 democrat nomination process, or the programs they like to watch.

You might want to fight back, and sign the Save Harry's Law facebook page. Until there is actually a few million people over the age of 49 that are internet savvy and proactive, the economic and political discrimination they regularly face will probably continue.

In 2008, Florida and Michigan primaries (Hillary Clinton strongholds), were not counted because these two states had moved up their primary voting dates.

However, Illinois, which heavily backed Barack Obama, ALSO MOVED UP it's primary date from the end of March 2008 to the beginning of February 2008, yet Illinois's primary votes counted while Hillary Clinton's strongholds of Florida and Michigan did not count.

In 2008, Caucuses held in February very much favored the young because they were held at 7PM and went on for hours in dark and cold conditions. Keep in mind that in the cold, north central states, 7PM caucus starts that went on for hours were much easier for younger voters to attend, once again favoring the youth versus the more mature.

This age discrimination trend continues now with a show such as Harry's Law.  Basically, if you are over 49 years of age, your Harry's Law viewership counts for less than 1/8th the "vote" of a viewer that is 49 or younger. This is beyond insulting, it's infuriating. Please help Save Harry's Law Facebook get to 100,000 likes.



Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Saturday, June 9, 2012

The Churlish actions of some feminist bloggers.

It appears that some feminst blogs view males that post comments on their site in one of the two following manners.

If a male posts a comment about how women have been kept down by the media and Barack Obama's administration, the male is viewed as a condescending jerk trying to come to the aid of poor defenseless woman. This usually results in a feminist response of, "back off pal, we don't need your pity".

If males agree with the comments being made by feminists, that is viewed suspiciously as well, "um, we care what you think,why?"

If males remain silent about how the media and Barack Obama's administration orchestrated a disrespect of women that helped Obama win the presidency, then that's to be expected from typical male dunderheads that would rather choose whether to breathe or scratch every few seconds of their pointless lives than care about how Hillary Clinton was mistreated in 2008. 


So basically, no matter what a man does, feminists find the action or inaction cruel and typically evil.

Here's another example. How dare males not know that C.K. Louis is a female crucifying jerk! When asked for a link to some piece of video that verifies this point, none is offered, but the person making the request is viewed as a feminist agitator.


Apparently, not knowing that C.K. Louis is allegedly a feminist bashing male comic clearly proves just how daft men are who do not know a anti female male comic even after seeing some of that comic's work. (still waiting for a link that shows C.K. Louis as being anti female.)

This feminist perspective reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer is assaulted because he won't wear the aids ribbon. "What, you won't wear the ribbon, how dare you not wear the ribbon"!  


It's that exact same tone, "What, you don't know that C.K. Louis is a female crucifying jerk, then you MUST be a female crucifying jerk if you don't know C.K. Louis is one! Asking for a link that shows an example leads to the classic elementary school remark, "If you don't know, then I'm not going to bother telling you". 

And don't ever bring up that it was the power women in 2008 who put Barack Obama over the top. "What, you just offended EVERY FEMINIST HERE with that comment, you stupid, purposely antagonist male".

The reality is Oprah Winfrey, Arianna Huffington, Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazile, and to a lesser extent Maria Shriver openly supporting Barack Obama well before he had been vetted. 

With two supposedly solid democrat candidates that most democrats liked in 2008 (Obama and Clinton), why were these well known woman so for Obama and so against Hillary Clinton before all the democrat primary votes had been counted?  


Answer, probably personal money and power gains shaped their decision. All of these women have benefited financially by backing Barack Obama rather than remaining neutral, although Oprah Winfrey did have an eventual viewer backlash.

But beyond that, (and I left this part out because I assumed that feminists were smart and got it without it being stated) the female support for Obama then allowed the men in media to gang up on Hillary Clinton, and the men did so in droves. 


If anything, the above scenario actual identifies the power of women in today's world for making a huge difference in the 2008 democrat nominee race.  Without the prominent female support of Barack Obama that was displayed so early on, the men would have had to tone down their caustic remarks immensely.


Instead, this position is labeled as "just a man trying to be a jerk" and blame women for the 2008 Hillary Clinton nomination derailment.  How dare a male mention that powerful women allowed the men to  to be so openly against Hillary Clinton in 2008.

For both men and women, it was hurtful in 2008 to see so many powerful women fall for Obama and publicly advocate his nomination over Hillary Clinton, who was clearly the superior candidate and full of crap.


Obama has now assisted in over a million homeowners unfairly losing their homes via parallel foreclosure and continues to crap on the Clinton legacy by doing nothing but raising national debt levels.

As for using the man hating card accusation, yes, some feminists will bring that card up, first, before the accused man can, as if that somehow deflects their own tenacious man hating tendencies. 

I saw a form of that scam played out in 2008 when Keith Olberman liked to repeat over and over some of Hillary Clinton's best lines about Barack Obama's ineptitude, hoping that if he said them enough times in a row with disgust on his face that it would would woo the masses for Barack Obama.

What is the conclusion? Feminists blogs will not trust most male commenters for having an opinion that is slightly different from their own, nor will they trust males who agree with them, and they will scorn males who don't get involved in the plight of women as well.

My question is, just what is left? 

What is left for a non sexist man to do, is to do what actual sexist men do, and that is to IGNORE THE angry feminists and their hostility, or fight back. Neither scenario is actually productive, and that is saddest of all.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

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 ?