JG55

Saw this on twitter: some people eat when they are depressed, hope Michelle O put BO outside for the night!

Perfect example of a Full Suit vs a Empty Suit....

Still feel that way

I guess I am lucky, as I have ordered 3 times from them and got exactly what I paid for and pretty fast shipping too boot.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/ CONOR FRIEDERSDORF - Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama 31 SEP 26 2012, 7:00 AM ET 1195 The case against casting a ballot for the president -- even if you think he's better than Mitt Romney Reuters Tell certain liberals and progressives that you can't bring yourself to vote for a candidate who opposes gay rights, or who doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution, and they'll nod along. Say that you'd never vote for a politician caught using the 'n'-word, even if you agreed with him on more policy issues than his opponent, and the vast majority of left-leaning Americans would understand. But these same people cannot conceive of how anyone can discern Mitt Romney's flaws, which I've chronicled in the course of the campaign, and still not vote for Obama. Don't they see that Obama's transgressions are worse than any I've mentioned? I don't see how anyone who confronts Obama's record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him. I do understand how they might concluded that he is the lesser of two evils, and back him reluctantly, but I'd have thought more people on the left would regard a sustained assault on civil liberties and the ongoing, needless killing of innocent kids as deal-breakers. Nope. There are folks on the left who feel that way, of course. Some of them were protesting with the Occupy movement at the DNC. But the vast majority don't just continue supporting Obama. They can't even comprehend how anyone would decide differently. In a recent post, I excoriated the GOP and its conservative base for operating in a fantasy land with insufficient respect for empiricism or honest argument. I ended the post with a one-line dig at the Democratic Party. "To hell with them both," I fumed. Said a commenter, echoing an argument I hear all the time: I mean, how can someone who just finished writing an article on how the Republican Party is too deluded, in the literal sense, to make good decisions about anything not prefer the other party? Let me explain how. I am not a purist. There is no such thing as a perfect political party, or a president who governs in accordance with one's every ethical judgment. But some actions are so ruinous to human rights, so destructive of the Constitution, and so contrary to basic morals that they are disqualifying. Most of you will go that far with me. If two candidates favored a return to slavery, or wanted to stone adulterers, you wouldn't cast your ballot for the one with the better position on health care. I am not equating President Obama with a slavery apologist or an Islamic fundamentalist. On one issue, torture, he issued an executive order against an immoral policy undertaken by his predecessor, and while torture opponents hoped for more, that is no small thing. What I am saying is that Obama has done things that, while not comparable to a historic evil like chattel slavery, go far beyond my moral comfort zone. Everyone must define their own deal-breakers. Doing so is no easy task in this broken world. But this year isn't a close call for me. I find Obama likable when I see him on TV. He is a caring husband and father, a thoughtful speaker, and possessed of an inspirational biography. On stage, as he smiles into the camera, using words to evoke some of the best sentiments within us, it's hard to believe certain facts about him: Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis. The drone war he is waging in North Waziristan isn't "precise" or "surgical" as he would have Americans believe. It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment. At worst, this policy creates more terrorists than it kills; at best, America is ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people and killing hundreds of innocents for a small increase in safety from terrorists. It is a cowardly, immoral, and illegal policy, deliberately cloaked in opportunistic secrecy. And Democrats who believe that it is the most moral of all responsible policy alternatives are as misinformed and blinded by partisanship as any conservative ideologue. Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama's kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed. The fact that the Democrats rebelled against those men before enthusiastically supporting Obama is hackery every bit as blatant and shameful as anything any talk radio host has done. Contrary to his own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security. In different ways, each of these transgressions run contrary to candidate Obama's 2008 campaign. (To cite just one more example among many, Obama has done more than any modern executive to wage war on whistleblowers. In fact, under Obama, Bush-era lawbreakers, including literal torturers, have been subject to fewer and less draconian attempts at punishment them than some of the people who conscientiously came forward to report on their misdeeds.) Obama ran in the proud American tradition of reformers taking office when wartime excesses threatened to permanently change the nature of the country. But instead of ending those excesses, protecting civil liberties, rolling back executive power, and reasserting core American values, Obama acted contrary to his mandate. The particulars of his actions are disqualifying in themselves. But taken together, they put us on a course where policies Democrats once viewed as radical post-9/11 excesses are made permanent parts of American life. There is a candidate on the ballot in at least 47 states, and probably in all 50, who regularly speaks out against that post-9/11 trend, and all the individual policies that compose it. His name is Gary Johnson, and he won't win. I am supporting him because he ought to. Liberals and progressives care so little about having critiques of the aforementioned policies aired that vanishingly few will even urge that he be included in the upcoming presidential debates. If I vote, it will be for Johnson. What about the assertion that Romney will be even worse than Obama has been on these issues? It is quite possible, though not nearly as inevitable as Democrats seem to think. It isn't as though they accurately predicted the abysmal behavior of Obama during his first term, after all. And how do you get worse than having set a precedent for the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens? By actually carrying out such a killing? Obama did that too. Would Romney? I honestly don't know. I can imagine he'd kill more Americans without trial and in secret, or that he wouldn't kill any. I can imagine that he'd kill more innocent Pakistani kids or fewer. His rhetoric suggests he would be worse. I agree with that. Then again, Romney revels in bellicosity; Obama soothes with rhetoric and kills people in secret. To hell with them both. Sometimes a policy is so reckless or immoral that supporting its backer as "the lesser of two evils" is unacceptable. If enough people start refusing to support any candidate who needlessly terrorizes innocents, perpetrates radical assaults on civil liberties, goes to war without Congress, or persecutes whistleblowers, among other misdeeds, post-9/11 excesses will be reined in. If not? So long as voters let the bipartisan consensus on these questions stand, we keep going farther down this road, America having been successfully provoked by Osama bin Laden into abandoning our values. We tortured. We started spying without warrants on our own citizens. We detain indefinitely without trial or public presentation of evidence. We continue drone strikes knowing they'll kill innocents, and without knowing that they'll make us safer. Is anyone looking beyond 2012? The future I hope for, where these actions are deal-breakers in at least one party (I don't care which), requires some beginning, some small number of voters to say, "These things I cannot support." Are these issues important enough to justify a stand like that? I think so. I can respect the position that the tactical calculus I've laid out is somehow mistaken, though I tire of it being dismissed as if so obviously wrong that no argument need be marshaled against it. I am hardly the first to think that humans should sometimes "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." I am hardly the first to recommend being the change you want to see. I can respect counterarguments, especially when advanced by utilitarians who have no deal-breakers of their own. But if you're a Democrat who has affirmed that you'd never vote for an opponent of gay equality, or a torturer, or someone caught using racial slurs, how can you vote for the guy who orders drone strikes that kill hundreds of innocents and terrorizes thousands more -- and who constantly hides the ugliest realities of his policy (while bragging about the terrorists it kills) so that Americans won't even have all the information sufficient to debate the matter for themselves? How can you vilify Romney as a heartless plutocrat unfit for the presidency, and then enthusiastically recommend a guy who held Bradley Manning in solitary and killed a 16-year-old American kid? If you're a utilitarian who plans to vote for Obama, better to mournfully acknowledge that you regard him as the lesser of two evils, with all that phrase denotes. But I don't see many Obama supporters feeling as reluctant as the circumstances warrant. The whole liberal conceit that Obama is a good, enlightened man, while his opponent is a malign, hard-hearted cretin, depends on constructing a reality where the lives of non-Americans -- along with the lives of some American Muslims and whistleblowers -- just aren't valued. Alternatively, the less savory parts of Obama's tenure can just be repeatedly disappeared from the narrative of his first term, as so many left-leaning journalists, uncomfortable confronting the depths of the man's transgressions, have done over and over again. Keen on Obama's civil-libertarian message and reassertion of basic American values, I supported him in 2008. Today I would feel ashamed to associate myself with his first term or the likely course of his second. I refuse to vote for Barack Obama. Have you any deal-breakers? How is this not among them?

LOL

The Ten Commandments Of Owning A Pet September 14, 2012 | No Comments » | Topics: Animals, Life 1. My life is likely to last ten to fifteen years. Any separation from you will be painful for me. Remember that before you acquire me. 2. Give me time to understand what you want from me. 3. Place your trust in me. Remember that before you acquire me. 4. Don’t be angry with me for long and don’t lock me up as punishment. You have your work, your friends, and your entertainment. I only have you. 5. Talk to me sometimes. Even if I don’t understand your words, I understand your voice when it is speaking to me. Be aware that however you treat me, I will never forget. 6. Remember before you hit me that I have teeth that can easily crush the bones in your hand, but I choose not to bite you. 7. Before you scold me for being uncooperative, obstinate, or lazy, ask yourself if something might be bothering me. Perhaps I don’t understand what you ask of me or perhaps I am not feeling well, not getting the right food, been out in the sun too long, or my heart is getting old and weak. 8. Take care of me when I get old, you too will grow old. 9. Go with me on difficult journeys. Never say " I can’t bear to watch," or "let it happen in my absence." Everything is easier if you are there. 10. Remember, no matter what, that I love you. Unconditionally. Â

Or the end times !

Having trouble pasting. here,s the link to the story : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444273704577635681206305056.html

seen of Facebook via http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

Middle Tn usually escapes the worse of any recession due to location and diverse business in the area. Because of this people from all over the country are moving here, which in turns stimulates (there's that word) the economy, i.e. their need for housing and all the affiliated industries that go with it, Look at the growth Hendersonville, Mt. Juliet, Franklin etc.. So it is no surprise that we in this area could very well see increases in business actives but that doesn't mean other areas of the country are.

Twitter http://twitter.com/#!/search/?q=%23EmptyChairDay&src=hash

Good description off what Eastwood was doing and what he hoped to accomplish. Karl on the Eastwood Bit Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:52 pm Our old friend Karl still blogs at the Green Room at Hot Air, and his latest is a strong defense of the Eastwood bit (can’t call it a speech) at the GOP convention. I hope Karl won’t mind if I quote him at length: If you doubt that Eastwood was not simply winging it, don’t watch his performance — read the transcript. There may be no better indicator of just how intentional Eastwood’s performance is than to compare the visual impression he gave with the text delivered. Eastwood begins with a touch of Admiral James Stockdale, but Clint answers the question of why he is there. The fact is that everyone really knows why Clint is there — to make a political statement. But Eastwood, in mentioning that Hollywood is perhaps not as monolithic as the stereotype suggests, is making a subtle suggestion to the audience he wants to reach: you may be part of some left-identifying group, but it’s okay to disagree and there may be other quiet dissenters in your group. Eastwood then introduces the dramatic device of the empty chair, which in this context also echoes the political metaphor of the empty suit. This has been remarked upon, particularly as an echo of comedic dialogs from people like Bob Newhart, so I won’t dwell on it here, although it reappears below. Eastwood then proceeds to use this comedic device to deliver — as Mark Steyn noted in passing — some of the toughest political attacks on President Obama heard during the entire RNC. A number of the traditional speakers strove to play on swing voters’ disenchantment with the failed promises of Hope and Change. But notice how tired and traditional that just sounded in your head. Mitt Romney (likely with help from a professional political speechwriter) did it pretty well: “You know there’s something wrong with the kind of job he’s done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him.†But did anyone do it as powerfully and emotionally as Eastwood’s segue from everyone — himself included — crying with joy at Obama’s historic victory to the tears we now shed over 23 million still unemployed, which Clint bluntly called a national disgrace? This was the first part of Eastwood’s simple and effective argument. Eastwood points out — in a prodding, joking manner — that Obama was elected to bring peace and prosperity, but failed to bring either. That Eastwood may disagree with the GOP on some war issues is perfectly alright in this context, because, as suggested earlier and explored further below, Eastwood is not really targeting Republicans. Eastwood then arrives at his Joe Biden joke: “Of course we all know Biden is the intellect of the Democratic party. Just kind of a grin with a body behind it.†That last part is not accidental in a performance featuring an empty chair. But the first part is even more dangerous. For the last 3+ years, we have been accustomed to having Biden as safe material for humor, while Obama has been kept off-limits. Eastwood leverages the latter into the former, suggesting that Sheriff Joe is the real brains of the operation. Ouch! No wonder Team Obama got annoyed enough to respond. Having delivered these punches regarding our dire situation with velvet gloves, Eastwood then does the softest of sells for the Romney/Ryan ticket. As Jesse Walker noted, it was almost more of a pitch for Not Obama. Again, there was nothing accidental about the nature or placement of this speech withing Clint’s imagined dialogue. Eastwood concludes by summing up the GOP case to undecideds and rebutting the main point Dems seem to advance for Obama. First, “[p]oliticians are employees of ours… And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let ‘em go.†Second, “we don’t have to be metal [sic] masochists and vote for somebody that we don’t really even want in office just because they seem to be nice guys or maybe not so nice guys if you look at some of the recent ads going out there.†Eastwood was not “rambling.†He improvised within a structure, making a clear and concise case for dumping Obama. The only part of Eastwood’s bit that I found uncomfortable was the bit about Afghanistan and the Russians. That part left me going whaaa? But in general I thought that it was about time somebody made fun of Obama in front of a national audience. A perspicacious reader who does not wish to be named made an excellent observation. You had Ann Romney talking about love, and Chris Christie talking about how respect is more important than love. Then you had Clint Eastwood the next night. Does this make sense? Yes, it does: Ann and Christie were the set up and Eastwood closed the deal. In other words, you can love Obama but respect is what matters, and Eastwood was there to make sure that no one respected Obama as much after he spoke as they did before. I still think they should have done more humanizing Mitt on national TV, and maybe less of something else. But the idea that they began the important part of the campaign by making mockery of Obama fair game? Not bad, really. Not bad at all.

Wish they made one that said: Kick-Me ! I am a Idiot ... I like Obama.

Armed Citizen Stops Violent Attack on Cop Perry Stevens was minding his own business when he witnessed an attacker on top of Officer Brian Harrison. East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s spokesman Greg Phares says Officer Brian Harrision was escorting a funeral procession Friday when he pulled Temple over and wrote him a ticket for breaking into the procession. Temple took exception and attacked Officer Harrison. Stevens ordered Temple to “stop and get off the officer.†Temple, who was already wounded once by Harrison, continued his attack, so Stevens shot him four times in the abdomen. According to East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s spokesman Colonel Greg Phares: He again orders Mr. Temple to stop what he was doing and get off the officer. Those commands are ignored and he fires a fifth shot and that hits his head. The incident is over with, and as you know, Mr. Temple is dead. Police have already called the shooting justified. Mr. Stevens has a concealed carry permit. Temple reportedly had a criminal record. Two concerns here. First: Both Phares and Baton Rouge Police Chief Jeff LeDuff stopped short of crediting Stevens with saving the officer’s life. True. It’s impossible to know if Stevens saved Harrison’s life. That would require some sort of concurrent, alternate reality where Stevens didn’t intervene, then comparing the two outcomes. Life isn’t a tidy double-blind clinical trial. The FBI reports that in 2010, 19 police officers were slain while alone on patrol. Seven officers were killed with their own weapons. Of 56 officers killed, 16 had fired their own weapons, as Harrison did. Second: Only local station WAFB reported this incident. FBI Supplemental Homicide Reports show that private citizens killed police attackers only three times annually since 2000. Yet an unusual and compelling story of self-defense by a concealed carry licensee gets mentioned only by local media. Media blackouts allow anti-rights propagandists to continue claiming that self-defense incidents are rare, so banning concealed carry wouldn’t be an imposition.

Seems to be the case that most of the information is already known but not talked about in the media. Most reviewers are saying the same thing. Nice to see a well done conservative documentary doing very well at the box office .

POSTED ON AUGUST 25, 2012 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN BARACK OBAMA 2016, THE MOVIE This afternoon my wife, our 16-year-old daughter and I went to see Dinesh D’Souza’s 2016 at a nearby theater. I believe the film opened here yesterday; the crowd was about average for 5:00 on a Saturday afternoon. The movie is very good. It has several virtues, starting with the fact that it is only an hour and a half long. (These days there is no premise so slight, no theme so insubstantial, no plot so thin but what the film takes 2 1/2 hours or more to unroll.) 2016 is beautifully shot and edited, as you would expect from a film that is produced by the same guy, Gerald Molen, who produced such movies as Rain Man, Jurassic Park andSchindler’s List. It is actually entertaining, a quality not achieved by every documentary. My 16-year-old enjoyed it, so I think its appeal will be broad. Dinesh D’Souza, who appears frequently and is the principal narrator (Barack Obama is the other narrator) is a likable figure, and the similarities and contrasts he draws between himself and Obama are revealing and effective. It would be a great thing if many millions of people see 2016, as it would tell most people a great deal that they do not already know about our president. Here is the trailer: I have not read D’Souza’s book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage, on which 2016 is based, but I have heard Dinesh lecture on it twice. In a nutshell, his theory is that Obama’s world-view can best be understood by reading his memoir, Dreams From My Father, and taking it seriously. Barack Obama Jr., Dinesh argues, has assumed the anti-colonialist, anti-Western, anti-American, anti-free enterprise perspective of his father, which explains much of his otherwise-puzzling conduct as president. I think Dinesh is on to something here, and his premise helps explain, for example, why Obama returned Churchill’s bust, backs Argentina in the conflict over the Falklands, and tilts toward the Palestinians. My question about Dinesh’s theory is whether it explains the essence of Obama’s philosophy, or is more of a footnote, or, put another way, the icing on the cake. Without doubt, Obama’s rather tortured youth is an important part of his persona. His bigamist father, an “intellectual†who was in fact a repellent alcoholic poseur, abandoned his family when Barack Jr. was an infant, and Barack only saw him once thereafter. Further, Obama’s upbringing in Indonesia and Hawaii no doubt lends a certain exoticism to his thinking. But do we really need Barack Obama Sr. to account for his son’s hostility toward America and its traditional beliefs and values? I don’t think so. Obama came of age, over a period of decades, in an environment that can charitably be described as hard-left. His father and mother were both socialists or worse. His maternal grandfather selected a mentor for young Barry who was a long-time member of the Communist Party USA. The socialist New Party listed him as a member. His friend, colleague and fundraiser Bill Ayers is a terrorist who says he wishes he had set off more bombs. His college professor Edward Said was the leading intellectual voice of those who want Israel destroyed. His law school mentor Roberto Unger was too far left for Brazil’s socialist party, and was sent back to Harvard, where he declined all interviews lest he endanger Obama’s electoral prospects. The minister who converted him to Christianity was Jeremiah “Gad damn America†Wright. You can go on and on. My point is that the cornerstone belief of 20th and 21st century American leftism is that the United States is too rich and too powerful. This is not a perspective that is unique to Barack Obama; rather, it is common to essentially every modern American leftist. (I say this in part based on personal experience and observation.) To take just one of countless examples, Hillary Clinton marinated in the view that America needs to be cut down to size just as much as Obama did. That being the case, Obama’s efforts in office to weaken America are consistent not just with his father’s ideology, but with the entire culture of American leftism. That he is no outlier is demonstrated by the fact that essentially the entire Democratic Party has cheered everything he has done in office, from trying to socialize health care to apologizing overseas for the U.S. So in my view, Obama’s unique background and his tortured relationship with his absent father do help to explain some otherwise-puzzling actions, like returning Churchill’s bust. But they are not needed to account for the broader failure of his administration’s policies. Put another way, the oft-stated belief that Hillary Clinton would have been a materially better president is wrong. Of course, that doesn’t address the ultimate point of D’Souza’s movie: what will happen if we give Obama another four years? Obama’s urging Russia’s president to tell Vladimir Putin that in a second term he will have more “flexibilityâ€â€“flexibility to sell out American interests, apparently, or what was the point?–is chilling. It certainly could be that in a second term, Obama’s anti-colonialist (i.e., anti-you and me) impulses could be fully unleashed, in a way that would make his first term look successful by comparison. Let’s not take that chance! If you haven’t seen 2016, I am pretty sure you will enjoy it, and if your undecided friends haven’t seen it, they should.