About Me

Name:Alan Davidson
Email: liberaldamage@gmail.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

 

Exploiting the Middle & Working Classes

Posted by Alan Davidson on Saturday, July 26, 2008 3:04:37 PM
It is amazing to me how the political parties use the working and middle class as doors into the corridors of power and political office.

And..............I do believe that Democrats are historically much more guilty of this offense.

They open these doors at will and go slumming around for as much time as it takes to get what they want and then leave, shutting the door, locking it behind them with a dead bolt.

Obama and his campaign are guilty as sin in this regard.

I have a message to all the middle class and working class folks: Obama is not like you. Nor is any high level politician, Hollywood lefty or high profile lefty pundit like Arianna Huffington.

These people are RICH, and, if truth be told, they rather not "hang" with you. Just ask the former neighbor of John Edwards. Sure, they feign to....when on the campaign trail and when courting or buying your vote. Kerry will come out and ask "is this where I can get a hunting license"?, or Hillary will shoot back a shot and a beer chaser, etc., but do not be fooled. They ALL go home to million dollar homes with some of them having "staff". That's right , just let that sink in for a second. "Staff". At home. Maids, "go-fers", etc.

You think it was a "faux paux" when Obama was complaining about the the price of arugula at Whole Foods? No way. It was par for the course. A slippng out of his lifestlye. You think his family EVER shops at Safeway or Target? Not on your life, baby. Why? Because he understands that shopping there as opposed to Neiman Marcus or Whole Foods, is not in his "pricepoint".

And who are the enemies of the working and middle classes according to Obama and most Democrats and the Left?

The " Rich".

Themselves.

Really? Or is it someone else? Is it rich people in certain industries or Republicans?  Or rich Conservatives?

You bet. Big Oil. Big Pharma. WalMart. Rush. Murdoch, etc.

But hold your horses! Let's be clear here........Not rich entertainers, (unless it is Rush Limbaugh), not rich trial lawyers, (do we even have to mention Edwards and his McMansion here?), not rich Speakers of the House or Democratic Senators, (Democrats like Kerry are the RICHEST members of Congress), not rich leftist pundits, (Arianna Huffinton has a habit of "chillin out" on 245 ft yachts while she rebutts comments on snobbery), oh no!
 
What industries were the ones's that sustained the middle & working classes? Smokestack industries for the most part. Big, corporate industry. Energy, Auto, Chemicals, Manufacturing, Transportation. All under CONSTANT attack by the Dems, Libs and their enviro-nazi henchmen. And they got what they wanted, A halt on domestic energy production of all types, from coal to nuclear to oil. Massive regulation and taxation.

And now what? $4.50 a gallon gas and the Big Three are closing plants all over the place. Not that they had many plants open here anymore. The above straight jacket approach from the Dems and Libs forced these industries go open plants elsewhere. Like overseas. Mexico, etc.

Obama has massive support and fans who are middle and working class. Why? He is the very type that has ruined you. He and his ilk will continue to use regulation and taxation to halt growth in your communities by forcing companies to produce their product elswhere.

Oh, and just wait until he starts, along with his socialistic Congress, to start taxing "carbon". You haven't seen nothing yet.

But no worries. He has heard your cries and has promised to make it all better. He will tax the "rich". And what? Hand out checks to the middle and working class folks? For what? So you can be dependent. On him. Like a good little slave. And him? Oh, don't worry. He will be just fine.

In his million dollar house.
 
As an aside, I ask you this: name ONE high-in-the-ranks or otherwise high profile, federal level politician who is not related or part of an "old name" family or has at least been on the fast track to where they are now due to nepotism and or at the very least, Ivy League educated and part of high social circles?. Name just one who can be considered "working" or "middle class".
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama & "Change"

Posted by Alan Davidson on Thursday, July 10, 2008 8:27:29 PM
Q: What word is most widely used to reflect the message of Barack Obama's campaign? As you can see, I would be a horrible author of testing material.

A: "Change".

I have heard so much about change, I more and more want....well...no change.

I could go on with the "exactly what kind of change" rhetoric or put forth all the obvious mile wide weaknesses of why "change" doesn't always mean a good thing, etc., but the fact is, Obama has proved he is for change.

Big time.

He has changed more on his positions than a speed dater at TGIF's on a Saturday night.

I am not even going to go into them all because they are all a matter of record and while his supporters rationalize such as being "flexible" and "adaptable", such arguments are farce.

If you are still buying into the rehashed politics that Obama is slinging, you need to clear away the fog.

When the left leaning Washington Post, of all papers, makes a list of all his "changes", you know something is afoot in his campaign....and it aint' good.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

July 4th....Our troops in Bahgdad understand the meaning

Posted by Alan Davidson on Friday, July 04, 2008 5:22:18 PM
I keep hearing form the Democratic Party and the liberal, "progressives" in this country, how we should get out of Iraq ASAP.

Why? Because well, the whole thing is a mess, (it was, it isn't, currently), we shouldn't have gone there in the first place, (if you ignore the constant calls from DEMS and the Clinton administration for regime change, that is), "Bush lied, people died", he didn't, (even some hard core libs agree when they come clean), and the most disengenuous claim, that the troops themselves WANT to leave.

Gee.....so sorry       Sorry to clear away the fog. This reenlistment ceremony took place in Bahgdad today on July 4th, Fitting , huh?

Seems they are not only wrong on all of the above, they say such things to our detriment and to the pleasure of our enemies. God Bless Our Troops
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Heller" SCOTUS Ruling...precarious at best

Posted by Alan Davidson on Friday, July 04, 2008 2:34:40 PM
Much of the talk about the recent SCOTUS "Heller"  ruling on the right to bear arms as an individual right has died down to a trickle lately with most on the right along with the well known, much listened to and highly regarded pundits hailing the verdict as a victory in regards to the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and are calling it historic as if this right should have been questioned in the first place.
 
This is what is not being focused on or blasted out of the airwaves:
 
It was a split 5 to 4 decision.
 
That means that FOUR Justices disagreed that the 2nd Amendment lays out a right of individuals to keep and bear arms and that it instead applies only to "militias".
 
This is the big news
 
It shows how utterly fragile our liberties are in this Country today. If only one Justice such as Scalia, Roberts, Alito or Thomas were not on this current Court, the right to bear arms would have been taken away from every American last week!
 
June 26th, 2008 might be heralded as a great day. The flip side is that it was a sad one.
 
A day that shows that we are one seat away on SCOTUS for our individual, Constitutional, inalienable rights to be overturned and taken away en mass.

For these rights to become NOT self-evident.

In the Heller SCOTUS decision, a careful look at the two dissenting opinions authored by Stevens and Breyer should be seen as nothing less than a grave danger. The dissent(s) by these two Justices are different, but equally as incredulous. Yes, you can read through them and feel lost as these "brilliant" men dazzle you with historics and past case law (as they interpret such), but clear away the fog.

If you have the fortitude to get through their twisted dissents, their conclusions are plain and shown to be nothing but an apology of partisan opinions with little regard for the 2nd Amendment and that they will do whatever need be to twist it to their own liking.

Stevens, who was joined in his dissent by the far left Ginsberg, Souter and Breyer, basically states that the right to bear arms is not an individual one, but only that of a "well regulated militia". We should have seen this interpretation coming a mile away.

Let's be clear here: if it is EVER left back up to these dissenters and are joined by just one more of their pack, they will find it unconstitutional for individuals to own guns and the States will be forced to follow such a ruling and confiscate all the guns from those law abiding citizens who own them.

We all know who will be left with their guns. Just like we know who has and uses them today in D.C. where it is illegal to own one. Funny thing that the number one cause of gand land deaths in D.C. is by gunshot wounds, being that that are illegal there.

That law worked out well.

But the separate dissent authored by Breyer, who just couldn't help himself, is so nutty, convoluted and insane as to cause your head to spin around like Linda Blair in the Exorcist.

Again, you can read through his dissent and be dazzled by twisted historics, interpretations, past case law dissemination, bloviations about trigger locks, yada, yada, yada, but unlike the Stevens dissent, Breyer actually finishes his with a clarifying conclusion that boggles the mind: "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas"
 
Just let that sink in for a second and let those body shivers subside while you regain your balance after falling down.
 
Let's just suppose for a second that you live in D.C. or any other "crime ridden urban area", and have for all your life, back when the neighborhood was relatively safe. And suppose you know that today, the only people who have guns in D.C. are the same people who are killing other people EVERY DAY in D.C. with GUNS, and who are also those who disregard the law currently in place that makes gun ownership illegal.
 
Breyer is simply saying: Tough Sh***.
 
You want to own a gun......... you have to risk breaking the law and going to jail. You have no right to own a gun to defend yourself since you happen to need one because you live in a CRIME RIDDEN URBAN AREA.
 
Just take the bullet from the criminal who uses a gun against you because the law doesn't mean nothing to him and too damn bad for you since now you are dead.
 
Sad indeed..............

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mental Disorder?

Posted by Alan Davidson on Thursday, July 03, 2008 4:27:19 PM
Thank you for reading my very first posting here on my Blog on TownHall!
 
I thought about what my first entry would be and came away with something that stuck with me sometime ago.
 
Various pundits have called liberalism some sort of mental defect or disorder. Some others have stated it less strongly, opining that liberals are confused, brainwashed or simply misguided. Liberals state all of the above about conservatives and it goes on and on.....
 
While I agree with some of the more colorful explainations, I must say that I see a element of self loathing bordering on self injury or masochism involved with the positions, beliefs and ideology that liberals adhere to.
 
Here is an example: It can be said that a nail in the coffin for Walter Mondale's 1984 run for the Presidency against Ronald Reagan was his statement that he "would raise taxes". Even Democrats and liberals back then cringed at the idea.
 
No More.
 
We now live in a USA where not only did almost all of the potential Democratic front runners for the nomination state that they would raise taxes, they could not even hope to be in the running unless they said such!
 
The mantra is "raise taxes" "raise taxes"! And it is not only welcomed, but praised. Just wrap your head around that for a moment. Approximately 50% (or more) of the US population have bought into the idea that the Government should be not only be given more of one's wages that they have worked for, but are HAPPY and BEGGING to give it up. Mental disorder? Masochism?  
 
No before you go thinking that these are the wants and desires only of the Democratic folks on the poverty stricken and working class rungs on the socio-economic ladder, clear away the fog. The folks with real money are not only wanting to pay more taxes, they are contributing record amounts of campaign contributions to Obama who has stated clearly and without pause, that he will be raising their taxes. They are, in essence, PAYING for someone to take more of their money. How bout' them apples? Are you dizzy yet?

Here it is in a sentence: "I will contribute $2,300 to your campaign because you have ensured me that you will raise my taxes". Mental defect? Sounds like it.
 
Obama has stated he will raise capital gains taxes, raise the limit on social security payroll taxes, raise income taxes and keep the death tax. And the very people who will pay more embrace and praise him.

I simply cannot understand this at all. Is there any way to explain this?
 
 
 
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »