This Is Why They Can NEVER Be Allowed To Lead, Again ...
... or at least they remove their collective head from their collective rectum. Michelle Malkin has this story today of a Huffington Post genius who came up with an idea to really stick it to the "Bush Gang," as he calls them in his comment. My comments are, naturally mixed in; each paragraph deserves an immediate rebuttal.
...if President Bush were to do something outrageous, such as use nuclear weapons against Iran, this could become the spark that ignites a general strike. There would be a widespread perception that the White House had acted irrationally, against the common good. This could produce a broad-based coalition that unites workers, activists, and groups aggrieved by the Administration, such as immigrants. All that would be needed is an action focus.
All rithie then; these barking moonbats are against the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. How far does this go? If Iran is fueling a missile, getting ready to fire it (say a year or two down the road) what do these poor fools want us to do? Issue a strongly worded letter or television-aired rebuke? I have a news flash for them: If that situation ever occurred, I would expect our government to prepare and execute a pre-emptive nuclear strike. This is called strategy, and when you are playing with nuclear weapons, the dimensions of the situation increase exponentially. Our only response, in such a situation, should be a strike beforehand to remove the threat. I am sorry if I am on the side that has little problem with the release of another nuclear weapon; obviously the world was not paying close enough attention in 1945 when we used two to end a war. I would expect that we are willing to do so again to prevent an ally, or ourselves, from being the target of such a weapon. Of course, this particular moonbat sounds like he would have little problem if a nuclear weapon hit the United States. He would be content until the End Times to wait before the United States took another action similar to that on Iraq; obviously this person has not the ability to read. Were that contrary, he would know the evidence simply mounts everyday that Saddam was a threat to us, to our interests abroad, and to our allies.
A logical target for a general strike would be commercial transportation, particularly the boat, rail, and truck lines that handle cargo containers. America is a “just-in-time” society, where many businesses depend upon an uninterrupted steam of deliveries. Even a two-day disruption in the national transportation network would have huge consequences for the economy. Impact that would be noticed not only by the White House and the national media, but also by the commercial power elite. A general strike might goad Wall Street to rein in the White House and produce significant change.
Aside from the fact that Wall Street does not run the country (and that this man lacks a basic grasp of economics), the idea of targeting these sorts of industries is not wise. Upsetting the consumer is not going to bring people to your side. It will drive them away, and make sure your side never sees the halls of power again. In addition, with gas prices playing havoc across the nation, holding up fuel shipments is REALLY irritating to the consumer. Not only could you produce a limited shortage (driving gas prices even further), but even the attachment of a threat of such a move could send the prices up more. The numbers I heard on the radio Friday stated that the national average for gas was $2.89 a gallon. The average price for gas in the Phoenix Metro area (where Thomas and I live) are hovering around $3.05 a gallon; for this commenter, and those unable to do simple math, that is a difference of fifteen cents. We are paying more in Arizona than the national average. If gas prices are spiked because of this fool's nutty idea, I want him hunted down. Besides, what would happen to some of those non-union people? I can guarantee that more than a couple will be as unemployed as Mother Moonbat is.
In these perilous times, it’s important to send a clear message to the Bush gang: Americans value democracy and are prepared to defend it. Sending this message means getting out of our living rooms and into the streets.
In other words, it is the call for yet another loopy antiwar protest. Or, is it simply an excuse for the Leftists in America, who clearly lost out on the "May Day" demonstration (Of all the stupid ideas, holding a demonstration on what is basically the "Communist" holiday; there were plenty of Che signs and shirts) might be trying to bring up another one. For nothing more than another attempt to hurt this nation and its economy. They wanted the same thing for the May Day demonstration, but they barely affected traffic in any of the areas like DC, LA, New York, or Chicago. (Well, no more than usual.)
So, is this to be Round 2? Where will it be held this time? They have to have a "central location" to picket, right? If this is to be a strike, then let us see what they are picketing. If not, this is not a strike.
It is another moonbat fest to commiserate. Furthermore, this lone comment on the Huffington Post shows that these people have no clue. They cannot comprehend the times we live in, or the stakes that are on the line. Not in this war. Not at this moment in the nation's progression forward. And certainly not in matters of economics or national security.
I hope they remember to set it up for a slow news day so the MSM can get plenty of coverage in. It will be the only way they will get any sort of extended mention. The real bloggers (unlike the faux ones at Huffington Post) will cover only a bit of it, and usually the funniest parts.
The Bunny ;)
... or at least they remove their collective head from their collective rectum. Michelle Malkin has this story today of a Huffington Post genius who came up with an idea to really stick it to the "Bush Gang," as he calls them in his comment. My comments are, naturally mixed in; each paragraph deserves an immediate rebuttal.
...if President Bush were to do something outrageous, such as use nuclear weapons against Iran, this could become the spark that ignites a general strike. There would be a widespread perception that the White House had acted irrationally, against the common good. This could produce a broad-based coalition that unites workers, activists, and groups aggrieved by the Administration, such as immigrants. All that would be needed is an action focus.
All rithie then; these barking moonbats are against the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. How far does this go? If Iran is fueling a missile, getting ready to fire it (say a year or two down the road) what do these poor fools want us to do? Issue a strongly worded letter or television-aired rebuke? I have a news flash for them: If that situation ever occurred, I would expect our government to prepare and execute a pre-emptive nuclear strike. This is called strategy, and when you are playing with nuclear weapons, the dimensions of the situation increase exponentially. Our only response, in such a situation, should be a strike beforehand to remove the threat. I am sorry if I am on the side that has little problem with the release of another nuclear weapon; obviously the world was not paying close enough attention in 1945 when we used two to end a war. I would expect that we are willing to do so again to prevent an ally, or ourselves, from being the target of such a weapon. Of course, this particular moonbat sounds like he would have little problem if a nuclear weapon hit the United States. He would be content until the End Times to wait before the United States took another action similar to that on Iraq; obviously this person has not the ability to read. Were that contrary, he would know the evidence simply mounts everyday that Saddam was a threat to us, to our interests abroad, and to our allies.
A logical target for a general strike would be commercial transportation, particularly the boat, rail, and truck lines that handle cargo containers. America is a “just-in-time” society, where many businesses depend upon an uninterrupted steam of deliveries. Even a two-day disruption in the national transportation network would have huge consequences for the economy. Impact that would be noticed not only by the White House and the national media, but also by the commercial power elite. A general strike might goad Wall Street to rein in the White House and produce significant change.
Aside from the fact that Wall Street does not run the country (and that this man lacks a basic grasp of economics), the idea of targeting these sorts of industries is not wise. Upsetting the consumer is not going to bring people to your side. It will drive them away, and make sure your side never sees the halls of power again. In addition, with gas prices playing havoc across the nation, holding up fuel shipments is REALLY irritating to the consumer. Not only could you produce a limited shortage (driving gas prices even further), but even the attachment of a threat of such a move could send the prices up more. The numbers I heard on the radio Friday stated that the national average for gas was $2.89 a gallon. The average price for gas in the Phoenix Metro area (where Thomas and I live) are hovering around $3.05 a gallon; for this commenter, and those unable to do simple math, that is a difference of fifteen cents. We are paying more in Arizona than the national average. If gas prices are spiked because of this fool's nutty idea, I want him hunted down. Besides, what would happen to some of those non-union people? I can guarantee that more than a couple will be as unemployed as Mother Moonbat is.
In these perilous times, it’s important to send a clear message to the Bush gang: Americans value democracy and are prepared to defend it. Sending this message means getting out of our living rooms and into the streets.
In other words, it is the call for yet another loopy antiwar protest. Or, is it simply an excuse for the Leftists in America, who clearly lost out on the "May Day" demonstration (Of all the stupid ideas, holding a demonstration on what is basically the "Communist" holiday; there were plenty of Che signs and shirts) might be trying to bring up another one. For nothing more than another attempt to hurt this nation and its economy. They wanted the same thing for the May Day demonstration, but they barely affected traffic in any of the areas like DC, LA, New York, or Chicago. (Well, no more than usual.)
So, is this to be Round 2? Where will it be held this time? They have to have a "central location" to picket, right? If this is to be a strike, then let us see what they are picketing. If not, this is not a strike.
It is another moonbat fest to commiserate. Furthermore, this lone comment on the Huffington Post shows that these people have no clue. They cannot comprehend the times we live in, or the stakes that are on the line. Not in this war. Not at this moment in the nation's progression forward. And certainly not in matters of economics or national security.
I hope they remember to set it up for a slow news day so the MSM can get plenty of coverage in. It will be the only way they will get any sort of extended mention. The real bloggers (unlike the faux ones at Huffington Post) will cover only a bit of it, and usually the funniest parts.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home